Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

ROYAL ARMY SERVICE CORPS (PRIVATE A. W. COKER).

Mr. FREDERICK GREEN: 2.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether a further inquiry will be made into the case of Private Arthur William Coker, No. 35,879, Royal Army Service Corps, now unable to find employment, and living in one small room with his wife and four children, having been discharged from the Army as unfit with a paralysed arm, and stated to be suffering from delusions; whether neither his father nor mother, who are still living, nor any of his family, have suffered from delusions at any time; whether it is admitted that paralysis and delusions are sometimes the sequelæ of inoculation; and whether he will state the reasons for the decision of the appeal tribunal that no assistance is to be afforded him in his distressed circumstances?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Macpherson): This case was very carefully considered by his local war pensions committee, by a medical board, by my technical advisers, and by an appeal tribunal; and on each occasion it was found that the man's condition was not due to service.

POOR LAW RELIEF, CLUTTTON.

Mr. HURD: 3.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the statement of the Clerk to the Clutton Guardians to the effect that it was only after a correspondence ex-
tending over 19 months, during which he, the Clerk, wrote, 40 letters respecting the case, that the Ministry of Pensions accepted liability for payment of the sum of £7 13s. Poor Law Relief granted to an ex-Guardsman whose pension was reduced and who was certified as being unable to work; and what steps are being taken to expedite matters of this kind in the future?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I have not yet been able to complete my inquiries into this case, but I will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

TREATMENT ALLOWANCES.

Sir H. HARRIS: 4.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that the Ministry in a recent letter informed the London War Pensions Committee that, as regards the payment of treatment allowances, the question to be considered is whether a man is prevented from following his occupation in consequence of the amount of time taken up in obtaining the treatment ordered by the Ministry, and that if he is so prevented treatment allowances are payable, but not otherwise; whether he is aware that in 1917 the Ministry's instructions to local committees under the Royal Warrant stated that treatment allowances were payable to disabled men undergoing a course of treatment if it was considered that during the period of the treatment the man was not reasonably able to work, and that such interpretation of the Royal Warrant has been in force up to the present time; and whether he will state the reasons of the Ministry for adopting this new and restricted interpretation of the Royal Warrant, which has the effect of denying treatment allowances to men who during a course of treatment are unfit for work unless the amount of time occupied in the treatment would prevent the man following his occupation, and why instructions on the subject have not been circulated to local war pensions committees generally?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am not able to identify the precise letter referred to by my hon. Friend, but from the terms of the letter I gather that it related to cases of men in receipt of out-patient treatment at hospitals or clinics, or of treatment in their own homes. I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to the terms
of Article 6 of the Warrant, which clearly provides that allowances at the maximum rate of pension are only payable where, in consequence of the course of treatment deemed necessary in the man's interests, he is unable to provide for the support of himself and family. The condition for payment of such allowances, referred to by my hon. Friend in the first part of his question, is only one, though an important one, of the conditions which would entitle the man to full allowances; but clearly also a man may be actually prevented from working, not by the length of time occupied in treatment, but by the fact that the treatment, coupled with the condition for which treatment is being given, is such as to render it undesirable, or even impossible, in the doctor's opinion, for the man to work, and in such a case full treatment allowances would be payable. This is not a new interpretation of the Royal Warrant, but, as it was found that misapprehension had arisen as to the terms of the instructions, and considerable abuse of the provisions of Article 6 had occurred, the attention of local committees and others concerned was drawn to the matter by a circular issued in the early part of the present year.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

CONVICT FRANK HARDY (RELEASE).

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 6.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether Frank Hardy was sentenced to five years' imprisonment for forgery and released after only eight months' imprisonment in 1919, supplied with money, and employed as secret service agent for nine months, until he was exposed by the hon. Member for Cavan, East, before a meeting of journalists; whether Frank Hardy testifies to the truth of the above, and states that other convicts were released to take service under the Government; and what action he proposes to take?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): Before I answer this question may I say, with reference to Irish questions generally, that 44 new questions appeared on the Paper yesterday
for answer to-day. I am most anxious to supply the fullest possible answers, but I appeal to hon. Members to give me at least three days' notice, and also to remember that it is difficult to ask officers who are searching for assassins in any disturbed area to secure quickly the information which the House requires.
The answer to the question is as follows:—This man was convicted of false pretences on 3rd December, 1918, and was sentenced to five years' penal servitude on 17th April, 1919. His sentence was reduced by the Lord Lieutenant to one of three years' penal servitude, and on 29th July, 1919, he was released on licence. This clemency was shown to him for no other reason than that his wife was ill and in poor circumstances, and that he himself gave promise of amendment. I have no knowledge, other than that from statements which have appeared in the Press, as to what happened to Hardy subsequent to his release, except that in May, 1920, he had employment as a journalist on a religious paper in London, and was well reported on by the police. The statement that convicts have been released to take service under Government is untrue.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I say that I put this question down a fortnight ago, so that the Chief Secretary's strictures do not apply to me. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that. Frank Hardy is going about London seeing influential people and taking his oath that these things are true, and that he has seen a Member of the Government and sworn to him that they are true?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: As the man has seven previous convictions against him,
it is hopeless—

Mr. MacVEAGH: If he had seven previous convictions against him, how did he get into the service of the Crown?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am not aware that he was in the service of the Crown.

Mr. DEVLIN: Has he been invited to become a Member of the Coalition Government?

DISTURBANCES, TEMPLEMORE.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 7.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the police who attempted to
extinguish the flaming houses in Temple-more on the night of 29th October last have any information as to the persons who fired the houses and sacked the town; and what steps they took to check the riot and restore law and order?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am informed that the police who attempted to extinguish the fires in Templemore have no information as to the perpetrators of the damage except that they numbered about 25 and were masked and disguised. On hearing of the occurrence the police, who were not in sufficient strength to cope with the situation, at once requisitioned military assistance, which was furnished with all possible speed. The raiders had meanwhile disappeared, and the police and military thereupon proceeded immediately to the task of extinguishing the flames. The local council thanked the police for their efforts in helping to extinguish the fires. There are 437 houses in Templemore. Only two were destroyed, though many more received some damage. No lives were lost nor was anyone injured on this occasion. The expression "sacked the town' in the hon. and gallant Member's question, therefore, has no relevancy to the actual facts.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When does the right hon. Gentleman think that the expression "sacking a town" will apply? If there is one house left, does he think that a town is not sacked? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the detailed statements made in respectable journals that this town was damaged by uniformed men in the service of the Crown, and that the police tried their best to restrain the uniformed men, supposed to be soldiers, who took part? Will he prosecute the journals for making false statements?

MURDERS, BALLYDAVID.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 8.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has now received the evidence of the court of inquiry into the deaths of Frank O'Dwyer and Edward O'Dwyer, sons of William O'Dwyer, farmer, of Ballydavid, near Bansha, stated to have been shot by men in uniform on the night of 18th October last; whether he has read the minutes of evidence; what was the composition of the court; what witnesses were called; whether the court sat in secret; whether
any motor lorries were taken out by the police or military in that part of Ireland on the night in question; and whether he has any information showing who murdered these young men?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have read the minutes of evidence given before the court of inquiry in this case. The court was composed of three military officers, two of the rank of major and one captain. The proceedings were held in secret solely out of consideration for the personal safety of the witnesses, and for the same reason I am unable to give the names of the witnesses. The finding of the court was that the deceased were murdered by some person or persons unknown, and the court recorded their opinion that the murders were not committed by any person or persons belonging to the armed forces of the Crown. The evidence conclusively proved that no police or military motor lorries were in the vicinity on the night of the murder. I have no information as to who were the actual perpetrators of the crime, but I agree with the further opinion expressed by the court that the circumstances in which the murders were committed, which were of a cowardly, inhuman, and utterly despicable nature, show a close similitude with the methods adopted in the murders carried out by the Sinn Fein organisation.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether the aged mother and the sister of these unfortunate men were called as witnesses, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that they solemnly declare that these men were shot by uniformed members of the armed forces? Is he further aware that two other brothers of the O'Dwyer family fought in the American Army in France? Is this incident going to help good relations between this country and America?

Mr. MacVEAGH: Does the Chief Secretary propose now to publish the evidence?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I must protect witnesses who came forward at the risk of their lives in many parts of Ireland, as things exist to-day, in giving evidence to help the Government.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Do the mother and the sister of these two boys, who gave evidence to show that this murder was committed by men in uniform, want protection for their evidence?

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Is it not a fact that it is the custom amongst assassins to dress in uniform?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the eye-witnesses of this crime were the mother and sister, and is their evidence totally swept away by the statement of an interested party?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I can assure the hon. and gallant Member and the House that I have given the best answer I can supply.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: They were called?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes, they were called; certainly, the sister was called, although she refused to be sworn.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman publish the evidence of witnesses who do not claim protection or privilege? You will not, because you are afraid of it.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES (PAY).

Mr. ARCHDALE: 11.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland why resident magistrates in Ireland have not yet received the increase or arrears of pay promised in the Bill passed some months ago?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a somewhat similar question asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds on Tuesday last.

OUTRAGES.

Mr. DONALD: 13.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether robberies and outrages have been committed in Dublin recently by uniformed unauthorised persons under the guise of official searches for aims; whether a raid was made at the Home and Colonial Stores, South Great George's Street, Dublin, by armed men holding up the manager and assistants with revolvers, whilst others ransacked the premises and carried away some £149; and whether any arrests have been made?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: There is ample evidence that raids with criminal intent have been made by persons falsely representing themselves to be members of the forces of the Crown. An arrest was recently made in Dublin in connection with a case of this kind, but I cannot
make any statement on the subject at present, as the matter is sub judice. I shall inquire as to the specific case referred to by the hon. Member.

Sir M. DOCKRELL: May I ask if there was any damage to the building, as I happen to own it, and this is the first I have heard of damage?

Mr. DEVLIN: 62.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland why the summaries of official reports of outrages committed daily to the Press from the beginning of May were discontinued on the day when the sack of Balbriggan occurred; whether he will explain why in the month of August only four cases of private dwelling houses maliciously destroyed are specified in these summaries, no indication being given as to the perpetrators, and in the month of September only six such cases; and why the malicious destruction or partial wrecking of houses at Kildorrery, Templemore, Oranmore, Kill, Ballaghaderrin, Inniscarra, Tullow,
and other places, all occurring in August and September, were not mentioned in these summaries?

Mr. STEPHEN WALSH: 79.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what are the instructions of local detachments of Royal Irish Constabulary with regard to forwarding to Dublin Castle, by telegraph or otherwise, reports of outrages against persons and property occurring in their respective districts; what are the instructions to the officials of Dublin Castle with respect to the publication of reports of such outrages through the agency of the press; whether all outrages are reported and published or only selected outrages; and, in the latter event, on what principle is the selection made?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The discontinuance of the publication of the summary of outrages had no reference to Balbriggan. Responsible police officers report in the ordinary course of their duty upon all outrages which occur in their districts. These reports are sent to headquarters in Dublin in all important cases by telegram. The Press, apart from their own avenues of information, are given every facility for obtaining accurate information upon all subjects of public interest, and it was because of increased facilities in this connection that the summary was discontinued.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Is it not a fact that the summary was discontinued on the date on which the reprisals began by the forces of the Crown?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: It has no connection with what are called reprisals.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Is it not a marvellous thing that they ceased to be published on the day of the sacking of Balbriggan?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: That is only one of the many marvellous things that occur in Ireland.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate to us why these outrages on the part of the forces of the Crown are not included in this list, as they were formerly?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Reports of outrages of all kinds are available to the Press who take advantage of the facilities given, and it is because, in the first place, of increased official facilities to the Press, and in the second place, I am glad to say, because of the increased interest taken by the Press itself in Irish affairs, that the daily publication of these outrages is no longer necessary.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is the reason why they are not published because the Government themselves were committing outrages and burning towns, and will there be a bulletin issued headed "Government outrages; the burning and looting of towns; the destruction of villages, and the murder of innocent civilians."

Sir H. GREENWOOD: If the hon. Member has any evidence of that list, I wish he would submit it to me.

Mr. DEVLIN: I can send him tons of it.

SPECIAL CONSTABULARY.

Mr. KILEY: 18.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many recruits have been obtained to date in Ulster for the new Special Constabulary of well-disposed persons; and how many of such recruits were formerly members of the Ulster Volunteer Force.

Lieut.-Colonel ALLEN: Before the right hon Gentleman gives the information asked for in the last part of the question will he say if he does not consider that men qualified for service, during the War
are men who may be thoroughly trusted, and relied on to put down rebels who never lose an opportunity of insulting the British flag?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I do not wish to enter into that. About 2,000 applications for enrolment in the Special Constabulary have been received to date, but as yet none have been sworn in. All well disposed persons were invited to join, and no information is available as to the number of the applicants who were-formerly members of the Ulster Volunteer Force. It is not at present known how many applicants have offered themselves as officers.

Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman did not declare that these special constables were to be recruited all over the country, and subsequently, he confined the recruiting to Belfast and Tyrone in order to arm the political opponents of the Nationalist party to shoot them down in an emergency?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The last part of the question is utterly untrue. I have power to appoint special constables to each county in turn, and I am doing so.

Mr. DEVLIN: Why are these special constables confined to the City of Belfast and the County Tyrone, the most loyal, law-abiding, orderly parts of the country, and no special constables recruited from any other part? What is the reason why, in the most orderly and law-abiding part of the country, special constables are being recruited?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I consider they are most needed, for various reasons, in the places where we have commenced.

Lieut.-Colonel ALLEN: Is it not the fact that special constables have also been recruited in County Armagh, and are not some of them Roman Catholics?

ALLEGED REPRISALS (POLICE AND MILITARY).

Mr. KILEY: 19.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether at every inquiry held into alleged reprisals in Ireland there has been present some person with legal training or qualifications; and, if not, in the case of how many inquiries such a person has been present?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: As I have already stated, the inquiries unto such
allegations are conducted by responsible police or military officers, upon whose findings I can rely.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman considers that courts of inquiry into murders, presided over by majors in the Army as senior officers, and into alleged excesses by troops are competent courts on which we may rely?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I do.

Mr. BRIANT: 20.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many cases of alleged reprisals have been brought to his notice; in how many cases an inquiry has been initiated; and in how many cases such inquiry has been concluded?

Mr. GLANVILLE: 64.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland the number of alleged reprisals into which inquiries have been held; and whether he will publish the result of these inquiries?

Mr. MacVEAGH: 72 and 73.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland (1) whether he has any information which he can communicate to the House with regard to police or military excesses at Ballymote, Cullen, Ballingare and Galway on 2nd October; at Lacklagh, Turloughmore and Tuam on 4th October; in Cork on 5th October; in Meelick, Mount Bellew, Gort, Cloondara, Tuam, Sheverie, Bally-boy, Ballymoe, Castlereagh, Williamstown and Ballintober on 8th October; in Kilhimo, Pallashenry, Pike, Cork, Dublin and Drum on 9th October; at Clifden on 10th October; at Clifden on 13th October; in Athlone and Dublin on 16th October; in Corofin, Cummer, Anbally, Ballin-tubber and Tralee on 17th October; in Tipperary and Mallow on 18th October;
(2) whether any official inquiry has been made into the atacks made by uniformed servants of the Crown, accompanied by wrecking, looting, arson, and, in some cases, murder, on the following towns: Fermoy in September; Kinsale and Cork in November; Thurles in January; Thurles, Cork and Dublin in March; Burladuff, Kilcommon and Limerick in April; Limerick, Thurles, Bantry, Kilcommon and Kilmallock in May; Middleton, Limerick, Bantry, Fermoy, Lismore, Newcastle West and Kilcommon in June; Limerick, Union Hall, Middleton, Bally-landers, Tralee, Arklow, Galbally, Cork,
Ballagh, Emly, Tuam, Enniscorthy, Ballina, Leap, Caltra, Upperchurch and Tipperary in July; Castlerca, Doon, Rosegreen, Tralee, Kildorrey, Enniscorthy, Swords, Limerick, Tralee, Templemore, Castleiny, Loughmore, Killee, Bantry, Oranmore, Glengariffe, Dundalk, Kill, Knocklong, Shanagolden, Naas and Cove in August; and Ballaghaderin, Inniscarra, Tullow, Galway, Salthill, Carrick-on-Shannon, Tuam, Balbriggan, Drum-shambo, Ennistymon, Lahinch, Milltown Malbay, Ballinamore, Athlone, Killorglin, Trim, Kilfenora, Silvermines, Cork, Mallow, Liscarrol, Dunkerrin, Clonmore, Ballyshannon, Listowel, Ballygar, Drimo-league, Tuam, Galway, Roscrea, Tubber-curry, Ballyara, Achonry, Kilshenane and Gort in September; by whom were such inquiries conducted; whether any Reports have been made; and whether signed Reports will be called for and embodied in a Parliamentary Paper?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: As I have already stated in the course of recent debates, full and careful inquiry is made into every allegation of misconduct against the armed forces of the Crown in Ireland. The inquiries are conducted by senior officers, and the results are, embodied in signed reports. A number of such inquiries are still proceeding, and I am not yet in a position to furnish the House with a complete detailed account on the subject, but I hope to do so at a later date.

Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer how many cases have been brought to his notice, and in how many cases have inquiries been initiated?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am unable to do so, principally because of the short notice given by those who ask the questions.

Mr. HOGGE: Does the right hon. Gentleman, as Irish Secretary, not go to the Irish Office and get the totals of the inquiries which are being held either on one side or the other, or are we to understand that the information is not got until he telegraphs specially to Ireland?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: My hon. Friend is not putting the case exactly as it exists. I do my best to get detailed information for the House, but on a long series of questions affecting most disturbed parts of Ireland I cannot on short notice give details.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Did the right hon. Gentleman say he was endeavouring to answer questions Nos. 72 and 73?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I ventured to say that.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer Question No. 73—whether any reports have been made with regard to the outrages mentioned in that question, and some of which took place twelve months ago, and whether any reports in those instances will be called for and embodied in Parliamentary Papers?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I repeat the last part of my answer:
A number of such inquiries are still proceeding, and I am not yet in a position to furnish the House with a complete detailed account on the subject, but I hope to do so at a later date.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to tell us whether any reports have been received as to the wrecking, looting, and murders which took place twelve months ago.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have said so.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Can we have those Reports? Are they going to be issued as Parliamentary Papers?

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: Is it in order, to put as a supplementary question a question which appears on the Paper?

Mr. MacVEAGH: The Chief Secretary said he was answering the question to which I am putting a supplementary.

Mr. CHARLES WHITE: 22.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will initiate prosecutions for perjury against all Irishmen who have embodied in sworn affidavits to the effect that they have seen outrages deliberately committed by the forces of the Crown?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: No, Sir.

Mr. WHITE: Is so little weight attached to sworn affidavits that no action is taken to find out whether they are true?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I cannot answer a general philosophic inquiry of that kind.

Mr. WHITE: It is specific.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have answered the hon. Member's question—No, Sir.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When these affidavits are made, particularly as in the case of Abbeydorney, docs the right hon. Gentleman take any steps, or his representatives, to see the people and bring them before some Court and find out if they have committed perjury or not?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: It is not my business to try people for perjury. I am very much relieved that it is not.

Mr. WHITE: Is it the business of the right hon. Gentleman to inquire whether it is perjury or not?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: That is not my business.

PROPERTY DESTROYED (VALUE).

Mr. BRIANT: 21.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what is estimated as the total value of property destroyed in Ireland during the 12 months ending 1st November, 1920?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Pending the results of the numerous compensation claims awaiting decision under the Criminal Injuries Act, I am not in a position to furnish the hon. Member with this information.

MRS. J. ANNAN BKYCE (AEREST).

Mr. HOGGE: 33.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the circumstances of the arrest of Mrs. J. Annan Bryce at Holyhead; whether he can state the offence which she was suspected to have committeed or to have been likely to commit; whether he will state which Minister is responsible for her arrest; and whether, as it is now admitted that there was no ground for arresting Mrs. Bryce, the Government will offer her an apology and redress for this invasion of her personal liberty?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: In reply to the first and second parts of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave to previous questions addressed to me on this subject on the 8th instant. The officer who effected the arrest is of course under the control of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, but I am prepared to take full responsibility for this arrest. It is
not the case that it is admitted that there was no ground for arresting Mrs. Bryce, and in view of the fact that the documents found upon her contained gross libels upon the Royal Irish Constabulary I cannot agree that any apology or redress is due from the Government.

Mr. HOGGE: This question was addressed to the Prime Minister, and I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he can state the offence which she was suspected to have committed, and whether he, as a Liberal, agrees with this invasion of personal liberty?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): The action taken by my right hon. Friend and by those who are associated with him in the government of Ireland is for the defence and for the protection of liberty, and therefore I certainly, as a Liberal, support fully the action which they took.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Is my right hon. Friend aware that very high legal authorities are of opinion that the action of the Executive in the arrest of Mrs. Bryce was wholly illegal? [HON MEMBERS: "Name," and "Take action."]

The PRIME MINISTER: If there was any illegality committed, it was committed in this country. The courts are open, and it is not for me to pronounce any opinion.

Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask, if this lady was arrested for an offence, why she was not tried for it? I must press for an answer.

The PRIME MINISTER: That question has been answered over and over again, and it has been the subject of discussion. I do not think there is anything to be gained by re-opening this question by a system of cross-examination.

Mr. DEVLIN: If this lady was subjected to the humility stated in the question and admitted, it was for some offence she committed; why was she not tried for that offence before some tribunal?

The PRIME MINISTER: When there are so many outrages committed in Ireland—where thorp is undoubtedly a widespread conspiracy, ending in the loss of life—the police are entitled to take precautions. Whether in this particular case the precautions were necessary or not,
my right hon. Friend (Sir Hamar Greenwood) has already answered, but they are entitled to make examinations and search where there is suspicion, and that is the only way.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the only conspiracy this lady has been engaged in for the last five years was to establish and maintain out of her own pocket a hospital for wounded officers in the South of Ireland?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am making no suggestion at all about Mrs. Annan Bryce. I am only answering a question put by my hon. Friend as to the right of the police, to search and investigate and, where there is suspicion, to arrest, for the protection of their comrades and themselves, and for the establishment of law and order in Ireland. If that is restricted, it is quite impossible for them to carry out their duties.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is that not done in this and in every other country in the world?

Mr. DEVLIN: Is no person, however eminent or however free from the possibility of charges of this character, to be immune from being seized by the police? [HON. MEMBERS: "Certainly not!"]

Mr. MacVEAGH: Does the Prime Minister mean to suggest by his answer that Mrs. Annan Bryce was suspected of committing outrages, or of being engaged in a murder conspiracy?

The PRIME MINISTER: I most carefully safeguarded myself against anything of that kind. I have always said that the police are entitled to take steps of this character where they suspect that any person has got either information or documents which they believe will interfere with the carrying out of the law in Ireland. If we interfere with the discretion of the police in this respect, and say, "You must not exercise your functions if a person happens to be eminent," it will be quite impossible for us afterwards to expect them to take the risks which they are taking in carrying out their duties.

SINN FEIN DOCUMENTS AND GERMANY.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: 39.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can now publish the documents found in the
possession of Sinn Fein leaders in 1918, which prove that they were involved in a German plot?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. The Government have decided to publish these documents.

Major M. WOOD: Can my right hon. Friend say when they will be published?

The PRIME MINISTER: They will be published in a few days. As a matter of fact, the documents are in front of me now—[HON. MEMBERS: "Read them!"]—at Downing Street. There is a good deal of information which comes from secret sources that has got to be very carefully scrutinized; otherwise we might be giving away something which might be valuable to the Empire, and that is the only thing which is preventing the publication. I have not had the time to go through them with my colleagues with a view to that contingency; otherwise, the hon. Gentleman might see the documents.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is it a fact that the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Lord Wimborne, who was charged with the whole government of the country at the time, has stated that he has never heard of a German plot?

The PRIME MINISTER: When my hon. Friend sees the documents, he need not go to Lord Wimborne.

Captain REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why these documents have never been published before?

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Will the right hon. Gentleman also include any negotiations which have taken place between the Sinn Fein movement and Lenin and Trotsky?

The PRIME MINISTER: The question has been put to me about the War, and these are the only documents before me. As to the question of my hon. Friend (Captain Redmond), he will understand also that we could not publish before the information we sire going to give to the country.

SINN FEIN AND SOVIET RUSSIA.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to a statement, reported to have been made on the 7th of November by the hon. Member for East Leyton to
the effect that 4,000,000 roubles had been raised in Soviet Russia for Sinn Fein in Ireland; whether he has any information confirming the truth of the statement; whether any steps are being taken to prevent or to intercept the transmission of this money from Russia; and whether it is the policy of the Government to open friendly relations, commercial or diplomatic, with a State that is providing large sums of money for assisting a conspiracy to subvert the Government and institutions of this country?

The PRIME MINISTER: There is no confirmation of the statement in the question, but the Government are keeping a close watch on this matter.

IRISH MEMBERS (PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS).

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: 49.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether it is the practice to send the OFFICIAL REPORT and other Parliamentary printed matter to Irish Members who were elected to Parliament, but who have not taken the oath?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The answer is in the negative.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has sent copies of the OFFICIAL REPORT containing speeches of members of the Nationalist party to the Sinn Fein members?

COURT-MARTIAL, MALLOW.

Mr. KENYON: 59.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the proceedings of the court-martial which is trying seven men on a charge of being implicated in the destruction of property at Mallow have yet been concluded; and, if so, what is the result?

Sir ARCHIBALD WILLIAMSON (Parliamentary Secretary, War Office): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to my answer on Tuesday last to the hon. Member for Central Hull. As I then stated, none of the seven non-commissioned officers tried by court-martial were proved to have been implicated in the damage done to the town.

MURDERS AXD WOUNDING.

Mr. KENYON: 60.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many persons have been killed and wounded, respectively, in Ireland during the 12 months ending 1st November, 1920.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: It is impossible to state exactly the number of persons who have been killed or wounded in Ireland during the 12 months ended the 1st November, 1920, but the number is approximately 300 killed and 500 wounded.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Does that include civilians?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes, I think it does.

CREAMERIES (DESTRUCTION).

Mr. MacVEAGH: 61.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many creameries in Ireland were destroyed by fire or partially wrecked in each month beginning with April, 1920; why no Report of the destruction of any creamery was published in the summaries of official Reports of outrages communicated to the press during the period May to September, 1920, although these summaries contained comparatively trivial Reports of the burning of hay, peat, and other private property, without any indication as to the perpetrators or the motive; why no official Report of the destruction of any creamery has been published since these summaries were discontinued, with the exception of a Report communicated to the correspondent of the "Manchester Guardian" and published in that paper on 7th October, in which it was admitted that the creameries at Achonry and Ballygar were burned by the constabulary; will he state what is the policy of the Irish Government as to the publication of official Reports of the malicious destruction of property in Ireland and of the murders of civilians, respectively?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have already given particulars of the number of creameries destroyed or damaged, but without longer notice I cannot give separate particulars for each month. The official summaries referred to did not purport to be a complete record of all outrages committed, and if the suggestion in the latter part of the question is that there his been any deliberate suppression of facts by the Government I desire to repudiate it emphatically. Every facility is given to the Press for obtaining accurate information, on matters of public interest.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman still main-
tain that there is not a tittle of evidence to show that these creameries were destroyed by the armed forces of the Crown?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: There was not a tittle of evidence when I made the speech I did as to the identity of any individual responsible for the destruction of the creameries.

Mr. WATERS0N: Does the right hon. Gentleman now admit that a tittle of evidence has been produced since he made his statement?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes, since I made my statement some evidence has been produced as to the destruction of these creameries by the forces of the Crown, and as to the provocation there has also been further evidence.

Mr. MacVEAGH: At what date will the right hon. Gentleman be able to answer the question as to how many creameries in Ireland were destroyed by fire or partially wrecked in each month beginning with April, 1920?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman put down that question for next Thursday?

Mr. MacVEAGH: With pleasure.

NEWSPAPER OFFICES, LEITRIM.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if it is true that a party of men alleged to be in khaki forcibly entered the offices on Tuesday night of the "Leitrim Observer," held up the proprietor and his sister at the point of the revolver, and systematically wrecked the machinery and plant, pianos, and other contents, and whether an attempt was not made to set the office on fire; whether a plateglass window in the house and the shop of the brother of the owner of the paper was shattered with revolver bullets, and at other places in the town there were large chalk-mark inscriptions, accompanied by drawings of a skull and crossbones, with the inscription: "Three lives for one of ours. Take heed, Sinn Fein. Up the Black and Tans"; whether the local police have not dissociated themselves with this outrage, and whether the Government will help them in the inquiries they are making as to their origin, and will undertake to prosecute the perpetrators if discovered?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I received this question at 12.20 today, and I have not been able, in the interval, to obtain any information as to the attack stated to have been made on the offices of the "Lei trim Observer." With regard to the alleged attacks on newspaper offices in the last few months, I must ask the hon. Member to give me reasonable notice, so as to enable me to inquire into the facts in the cases referred to.

Mr. DEVLIN: How is it that these outrages can appear in the English newspapers two days before questions are put in this House and the right hon. Gentleman has no information to give to the House when he is invited to do so?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The information is no doubt in Dublin, but my time is taken up not with allegations of outrages, but in the pursuit of notorious criminals.

Mr. DEVLIN: Why is it that when these crimes are committed in Ireland against innocent people the authorities for whom he is responsible in this House do not report these outrages to him? Are they not criminals who burn down houses and murder innocent civilians? Does the right hon. Gentleman assert that they are not criminals?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, does not the evidence show that if an attack was made on the "Leitrim Observer," which, I believe shows Nationalist leanings as opposed to Sinn Fein, it looks like the work of Sinn Feiners?

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

LAND SETTLEMENT, COUNTY ANTRIM.

Major O'NEILL: 14.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many applications by ex-service men in the County of Antrim have been made for land, cottages, and plots under the Act passed last Session; and how many of the, applicants have so far received the land or cottages?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Nine hundred and nine applications have been received by the Local Government Board for cottages and plots in the County of Antim. Schemes which make provision for 86 cottages and plots are under consideration, but the legal preliminaries
which have to be complied with before possession of the land can be obtained take a considerable time, and so far no cottages and plots have been actually provided.

Major O'NEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give any explanation as to why only 80 out of 900 men have had their cases considered in this important matter?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: It does seem a bit slow and I will institute inquiries.

Major O'NEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last week the Prime Minister promised to give his personal attention to this matter?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am aware of that.

NICÆA (MASSACRE).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: 25.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can give the House any information as to the recent massacre by the Turkish Nationalists of the Christian population of Nicæa, and the destruction of the historic church of the Koimesis with its mosaics, tombs, and unique Christian monuments; whether, when the Greek Government was ready to occupy Nicæa in order to protect its Christian population and buildings, it was refused permission by the Allies; and, if so, whether this permission will now be given them?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): Massacres have occurred during the last two or three months, especially in the district lying between Broussa and Ismid which is upon the fringe of the zone occupied by the Greek army. According to a local report, which His Majesty's Government have no means of verifying, Turkish Nationalists on the 27th August, surrounded the Greek quarter at Nicæa and massacred the inhabitants. It may therefore be true that the Church suffered at the same time. As regards the latter part of the question, the operations agreed upon between the Greek Government and the other Allies were duly carried out I am not aware that the Greek Government proposed to occupy Nicæa.

Sir S. HOARE: Will the hon. Gentleman inquire of the Minister at Constantinople whether the allegations contained in the question are correct?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes, I will in quire, though I am not at all sure I shall be able to give any additional information.

VATICAN (BRITISH MISSION).

Sir S. HOARE: 26.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government has come to any decision as to the continuance of the mission to the Vatican?

The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government have decided, after full and careful consideration, that it is desirable in the public interest to continue the diplomatic representation of Great Britain at the Vatican, which has been in existence since the first year of the War and has been attended with beneficial results.

Mr. INSKIP: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether our representative at the Vatican will continue there only as long as the Vatican lends no approval to unfriendly acts by its agents towards the British Empire?

Sir S. HOARE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no such unfriendly acts have, as far as we know, been committed? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]

Mr. W. COOTE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this appointment was made as a temporary appointment for the duration of the War, and does he realise the strong feeling that there is in the country that the functions of this Envoy should cease, inasmuch as they are not producing any peace in the nation at the present time?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not quite agree with my hon. Friend as to the feeling in the country. I think the general feeling is that it is in the general interests of the country that the British Envoy should remain there.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

PRIME MINISTER (ATTENDANCE).

Mr. RAPER: 27.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the importance of the assembly of the League of Nations to meet in Geneva on the 15th November, it is his intention to attend this Conference?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope that I may be able to take some part in the work of the Assembly of the League at Geneva, but in the final decision I must be guided by the course of events at the Assembly and by other calls upon me at the time.

CHINA AND HEDJAZ.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 42.
asked the Prime Minister whether China and Hedjaz are sovereign-state members of the League of Nations; and whether these two states will be represented at the forthcoming meeting of the assembly of the League at Geneva?

The PRIME MINISTER: China is a member of the League of Nations; I am not, however, aware what steps she is taking to be represented at the meeting of the Assembly. The Hedjaz, not having ratified the Treaty of Versailles, is not yet a member of the League of Nations and cannot be represented at the Assembly until she has ratified.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Is it not a fact that Japan objected to China appointing delegates to the League of Nations, and suggested it should be her delegates who should represent China; and is not that the reason why China has not been able to take definite steps in the matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: I must have notice of that.

Earl WINTERTON: Is it a fact that the Allied nations such as Hedjaz are refused admittance to the League of Nations unless they ratify the Peace of Versailles, and was it not agreed at the time of the Peace Conference that every Allied nation would be admitted into the League, whether they ratified the Treaty or not?

Sir J. D. REES: Can it be said that the Hedjaz is a nation? Is it not merely a section of Arabs?

The PRIME MINISTER: It has been recognised as a Sovereign State. I think my Noble Friend is wrong. The Hedjaz is supposed to be a party to the Treaty. They have not ratified that Treaty. It is in the Treaty that the Covenant is contained, and if they have not given their consent to the Covenant, they can hardly be expected to be a member of the League.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Was not the Hedjaz definitely invited to become an original member of the League, and, if it ratines between now and the meeting of the Assembly, will its delegates be admitted?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is a question I should like to consider. I am perfectly certain that no one wants to exclude the Hedjaz. That State took a very leading part in the War, and I have no doubt very friendly consideration would be given to its application.

Mr. RAPER: Is it not a fact that the reason the Hedjaz has not ratified the Treaty is because we have not so far carried out our pledge given to the King of the Hedjaz?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot agree as to that. I know the suggestion is that we have given way to the French. That is not so. So far as we are concerned, we have respected all the promises Sir Edward Grey, as he then was, gave to the Hedjaz.

EXPENSES.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 44.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can inform the House as to the amounts paid by Great Britain, Italy and France, respectively, towards the necessary expenses incurred by the machinery of the League of Nations?

The PRIME MINISTER: As regards the amount paid by Great Britain towards the necessary expenses incurred by the machinery of the League of Nations, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave him on the 8th instant. I am making enquiries of the Secretariat of the League as to the amounts subscribed by other Powers.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: In addition to the amount of subscription, are we in any way responsible for any overdraft?

The PRIME MINISTER: We are not going to let them run into debt.

PERSIA (BKITISH FORCES).

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 29.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the statement of His Highness the Aga Khan that the presence of British military forces in North-West
Persia is not to the interest of either Great Britain or India; and whether he accepts this advice and will withdraw the troops from North-West Persia?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have seen the statement in question. His Majesty's Government have no desire to keep troops in North-West Persia a day longer than is necessary. We have adopted no policy in Persia which would necessitate a continuance of our troops in Persia much longer, and we look forward to their withdrawal, I trust, at an early date.

Colonel YATE: Is not the small British brigade at Kazvin the only real defence of Teheran, the capital of Persia, against the advance of the Bolshevist forces from Enzelli?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think so. I think the Persians themselves are quite capable of defending their capital.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is there still any fear of a Bolshevist invasion of Persia?

The PRIME MINISTER: Personally, I think it is very exaggerated.

INTERNATIONAL POSTAL UNION CONGRESS.

Mr. HURD: 31.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the recommendation of the International Postal Union Congress at Madrid that in future Congresses only parent countries will have voting power, Colonies being excluded from voting, although they may send delegates: whether such a definition would deprive Canada and the other Dominions represented at such Congresses of the enjoyment of their new status of nationhood as established at Versailles; and what steps His Majesty's Government are taking in the matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am informed that no such recommendation was made at the Postal Union Congress at Madrid. The voting power of the British Dominions is not affected in any way by the decision of the Congress.

Mr. HURD: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into this matter, because at Ottawa definite statements have come from official sources to that effect?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Are not Canada and other Dominions sister nations and not daughters?

IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSON: 32.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is intended to summon an Imperial conference next year; and, if so, upon what date.

The PRIME MINISTER: I have been anxious for some time past to renew as soon as possible that personal consultation between Prime Ministers which produced such good results in the last two years of the War and at Paris. I recently made inquiries of my colleagues in the Dominions as to the date which would be most generally suitable for them, and I am glad to say that a meeting with the Prime Ministers of the Empire has been arranged for the middle of June, 1921.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that no definite decision will be come to with regard to questions such as Mesopotamia until the Prime Ministers of the Empire have been consulted?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think that would be quite impossible. After all, the burden of the expense is not on the Empire, but on Great Britain, and we could not keep troops in Mesopotamia for months beyond what is actually necessary.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Has the suggestion ever been made that the Empire as a whole should accept that mandate and provide the cost?

Mr. DEVLIN: What about bringing in the National party?

Mr. HURD: May I ask whether it has been considered desirable to hold the conference at Ottawa?

The PRIME MINISTER: That was discussed.

ANTI-DUMPING BILL.

Mr. DOYLE: 35.
asked the Prime Minister if he can now name a date for
the introduction of the promised Bill for the prevention of dumping and the protection of key industries?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot add anything to the answer which I gave on the 28th of October to questions on this subject.

Mr. DOYLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the Bill will be introduced during the present Session?

Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a Motion on the Paper not to sit until Monday? Could we not have the Anti-Dumping Bill to-morrow?

Mr. NEWBOULD: In view of the general agreement which exists in the ranks of the Coalition on this subject, could not the measure go through without opposition?

The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Gentleman will be surprised when he sees how much he is disappointed. We have given definite pledges, and we mean to carry them out.

Mr. DEVLIN: We all agree that the Coalition Liberals would vote for anything.

PASSPORTS AND VISAS.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 43.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is able to inform the House as to the approximate date upon which the Departments concerned will arrive at any decision upon the points now being considered by them in reference to the simplification and cost of passports and visas?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I regret that I am unable to give any information as to when a decision will be arrived at on this question. And I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on this subject on the 8th instant.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Would the Prime Minister endeavour,, if time permit, to put forward this question at Geneva, and thereby earn the gratitude of the travelling public?

The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider that.

DYESTUFFS.

Mr. DOYLE: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a prospectus issued by the British Dyestuffs Corporation, Limited, of 18th July, 1919, contained Government guarantees protecting the British dye industry for a period of years; what was the nature of such guarantees; whether the prospectus also contained a proclamation of the Government in regard to the dye industry; whether this proclamation is still in force; if not, why it has been repealed; whether the industry is now subjected to unrestricted foreign competition in regard to which imports show a progressive increase; and whether shareholders of the British Dyestuffs Corporation, Limited, will receive compensation for losses sustained if, and as the terms of the prospectus are not or cannot be carried out or, in the alternative, an agreed and non-contentious Bill will be introduced to ratify the solemn engagements entered into by the Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: The prospectus issued by the British Dyestuffs Corporation in July, 1919, quoted a statement made by the President of the Board of Trade in this House on 15th May, 1918, to the effect that the importation of foreign dyestuffs would be controlled by a system of licences for a period of not less than ten years after the War, and stated that effect had been given to this guarantee by a Proclamation dated 24th February, 1919, prohibiting the import of dyestuffs except under licence. This Proclamation, however, in common with others purporting to be made under Section 43 of the Customs Consolidated Act, 1876, was rendered void by the decision of Mr. Justice Sankey in December, 1919, in the case of the Attorney-General v. Brown. There is therefore at present no restriction on the import of dyestuffs, and the importation has increased in the course of the present year. The Government, however, fully recognises its obligations in this matter, and it is our intention to introduce legislation dealing with the subject at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. DOYLE: In view of the national and military importance of this industry, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he will not reconsider his decision in regard
to the introduction of an agreed, non-contentious measure?

The PRIME MINISTER: Well, if my hon. Friend could give a guarantee, after consulting the various sections of the House, that such a measure will be non-contentious, that might alter the view of the Government.

Mr. FRANCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman also kindly remember that the West Riding of Yorkshire and Lancashire are dependent upon having dyes at a reasonable price to carry on their business?

Mr. WILSON-FOX: Will the legislation be introduced during this Session?

The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend has already had an indication of the differences that will arise at the moment the Bill is introduced. I am afraid that it would be rather too sanguine if we anticipated the measure would be a non-contentious one; that is why it is quite impossible for me, between now and the Christmas Adjournment, to guarantee the introduction of a measure of this kind.

Mr. DOYLE: Would the right hon. Gentleman kindly give some indication of what now is, or is to be, the position of the shareholders who subscribed the money to these concerns?

Mr. NEWBOULD: Are not these dwindling quantities?

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Is it not the fact that the Government has an overwhelming majority, and rather than see thousands of men thrown out of employment in this country in the coming winter could we not sit on Saturdays and carry this legislation?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think Saturday sittings would quite achieve the object the hon. and gallant Gentleman has in view. We propose to deal with this matter at the earliest possible moment next Session, but it would be a mistake to give an undertaking which I do not believe could be carried out to deal with this matter in the present Session.

Mr. R. McNEILL: Seeing the time is so short, could not the right hon. Gentleman substitute this legislation for—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Irish Bill!"]—
the Ministry of Health Bill against the Second Reading of which many of his own followers voted?

Mr. MacVEAGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman substitute it for the Irish Bill, for which no Irish Member voted?

EDUCATION ACT, 1918.

Colonel NEWMAN: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has received representations from public bodies and political associations urging a temporary suspension of the putting into effect of the provisions of the Education Act, 1918; and what answer has he been able to make?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. I have received an appeal on this subejet, but I am unable to add anything to the replies given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on the 27th October to similar questions.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House who the political associations are that are anxious to stop education?

Captain COOTE: May we have the assurance that there is no intention of doing anything that will prevent the efficient progress of education in this country.

Mr. WATERSON: Have the appeals been many, or a single one, or general?

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many local authorities have sent in schemes and how many are putting them into operation?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that I have received very many, but I have received some. I think it would be very serious—I could not conceive anything more serious—than that the nation should come to the conclusion that it cannot afford to give a good education to its children.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BRITISH PRISONERS.

The following question standing on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for South Battersea

(48) (Commander Viscount Curzon)—To ask the Prime Minister whether
British naval and military officers who have been retained as prisoners of war in Russia will be entitled to any special leave on their return and to full compensation for loss of money and effects?

I desire to postpone this question, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can give the House any information about the British prisoners?

The PRIME MINISTER: We have had some rather more satisfactory news about the British prisoners. They have already reached Tiflis.

Oral Answers to Questions — MESOPOTAMIA.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: 51.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether a Supplementary Estimate of expenditure in Mesopotamia will be laid before the House during the present Session?

Mr. BONAR LAW: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in communication with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War on this matter; but I think it will be necessary to take an Army Supplementary Estimate before Christmas.

PRE-WAR PENSIONS.

Major GLYN: 50.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will reconsider the drafting of the statement regarding pre-War pensions made on the 10th of May last in order that the words those in receipt of pensions assessed at pre-War rates may be substituted for pre-War pensioners; and if, seeing that the context of the statement was intended to express the Government's decision to relieve certain exceptional cases of hardship rather than to lay down a dividing line between the 3rd August and the 5th August, 1914, whether this alteration will involve any change of principle?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): I beg to refer the hon. and gallant Member to the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920, the Royal Warrant of the 16th August, 1920, and the Order in Council of the 13th August, 1920. It is not the case, as he seems to suppose, that persons in receipt of pensions assessed at pre-War rates receive no benefit unless their pensions were
granted before 4th August, 1914. They receive the benefit granted by the Act and other instruments, subject to a maximum limit of the post-War rates of pension. This last proviso applies only to a few cases in which there are certain compensating advantages for which pre-War pensioners are not eligible.

INCOME TAX.

Sir J. BUTCHER: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will introduce a Bill during the present Session to deal with those recommendations of the Royal Commission on Income Tax which have not been already dealt with; and whether that Bill will give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission with regard to the relief from Income Tax on superannuation funds?

Mr. BALDWIN: I cannot add anything to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a similar question by my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Greenwich. I am sending my hon. and learned Friend a copy of that answer.

Mr. DEVLIN: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, and before the right hon. Gentleman answers this question. You, Sir, at the opening of last Session made a rule that on Thursdays precedence should be given to Irish questions. For the last few Thursdays Irish questions have been given precedence according to the announcement you made; but to-day a number of other questions to Ministers are inserted and certain Irish questions are put back. I desire to ask you by whose authority there has been any change in the procedure arrived at and which you announced?

Mr. SPEAKER: The only decision arrived at, I understand, was the decision arrived between the Whips and the respective parties. I only call out the names. I do not settle the order in which the questions come.

Mr. DEVLIN: Then, can the Leader of the House give us some explanation as to this extraordinary change by which Members for Ireland are denied the advantages associated with having one day allotted to Irish questions?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware of any change. The system is exactly the
same as it has always been. During the last few weeks I have not noticed any absence of Irish questions.

Mr. DEVLIN: I give notice that at the close of questions I will raise this matter again.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Arising out of the answer to my question, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a strong feeling amongst many members of the commercial community in favour of introducing a Bill on the subject of the Income Tax referred to in my question, and will he consider that as soon as he can?

Mr. BALDWIN: I will.

Major GLYN: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now consider the appointment of a small committee with full powers to inquire into the whole position of co-operative societies and the claims made on their behalf before the recent Royal Commission on Income Tax; whether the views of the Income Tax Commissioners were not solely concerned with the incidence of taxation; and whether there are sufficient grounds to believe that a full inquiry into the whole matter would allay many prevailing doubts that cause considerable distrust?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am not sure that I correctly apprehend my hon. and gallant Friend's question. It appears to suggest that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer should set up a small committee to consider over again a subject to which the Royal Commission gave much time and attention, and on which they reported at some length. This would be an unusual and, I think, an unprofitable course.

BRITISH TREASURY BILLS (UNITED STATES).

Mr. WISE: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount of ninety-day British Treasury Bills issued in the United States of America; and if the amount has been reduced during the last 12 months?

Mr. BALDWIN: The maximum amount of British Government dollar Treasury Bills outstanding at any moment in the United States of America was $98,005,000 on 30th September, 1919. The total,
which varies from day to day,was $31,540,000 on 8th November, 1920, and will very shortly be reduced to $20,000,000.

INDUSTRIAL AND POWER SPIRIT.

Mr. JESSON: 56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what way the home manufacturers of alcohol would be treated unfairly by the importation of denatured spirits intended to be used as motor fuel; and if he is aware that the home distillers are using every occasion and opportunity to obstruct the importation of industrial and power alcohol which is so urgently required for the motor transport services of the country?

Mr. BALDWIN: The interests of the Revenue require that home-made spirit shall not be used as motor fuel unless denatured in a prescribed manner and under approved conditions. It would obviously be a handicap to the home manufacturer if imported spirits were allowed to be used duty free as motor fuel if denatured abroad under restrictions involving less cost to the producer. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

NATALITE.

Mr. JESSON: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the importation of natalite is still being obstructed and why it is classified in the tariff as a spirit mixture, which makes it subject to a prohibitive import duty; and will he take steps to remove the duty, so that this proved substitute for petrol may be imported as freely as power alcohol, which, by itself, is not so suitable for internal combustion engines?

Mr. BALDWIN: In answer to the first paragraph, I can add nothing to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to the hon. Member on the 4th instant. The question whether natalite is a spirit mixture is one of fact; there is no provision in law for the importation duty-free of spirits denatured abroad, nor, as at present advised, do I consider it desirable that such provision should be made. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

SERBIA.

Mr. R. McNEILL: 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any subsidy is now being paid to the Serbian Government; and what is the total amount paid by way of loan or otherwise to Serbia since 1914?

Mr. BALDWIN: No subsidy is now being paid to the Serbian Government, but that Government has credits in respect of relief and reconstruction loans as yet undrawn amounting to about £700,000. In addition a special grant of £25,000 a year in aid of Serbian students in this country has been voted by Parliament since 1918; this will cease in July, 1921. The amount advanced since 1914 to Serbia is approximately £22,500,000. This sum includes loans and the value of supplies made by British Government Departments to Serbia and also relief and reconstruction grants since the Armistice approximating £1,500,000.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: When is that £22,000,000 repayable, approximately?

Mr. BALDWIN: It is repayable when they are able to pay it.

MR. MALONE, M.P. (ARREST).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the hon. Member for East Leyton has been arrested within the precincts of Trinity College, Dublin; what he is charged with; whether the alleged offence was committed in England or in Ireland; under what powers has he been arrested; will he be brought to trial in Ireland or in England, and, if in Ireland, before what sort of court?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The hon. Member for East Leyton was arrested in Trinity College, Dublin, last evening under the authority of the Defence of the Realm Regulation No. 55 in consequence of instructions received from the Director of Public Prosecutions. He was brought over to London last night. I must refer my hon. Friend to the Secretary of State for Home Affairs for information as to the charge and the place of trial.

Mr. THOMAS: May I ask if the Government will consider the advisability of not proceeding with the prosecution, which will merely give advertisement to
one who has been seeking to be made a martyr for a considerable time, and who is therefore not deserving of it?

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that the law is not varied, but that it is carried out, whoever the, subject concerned?

Mr. MacVEAGH: Was the hon. Member arrested for delivering a speech about hanging people from lamp-posts, and was not the same speech delivered by the Leader of the House against the Prime Minister on one occasion?

Mr. NEWBOULD: Is it not a fact that among the other incriminating documents found in the hon. Member's flat was a Coalition Coupon signed by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House?

Viscount CURZON: Is it not a fact that the hon. Member for East Leyton has threatened all the Curzons with the lamp-post or the wall?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I quite agree with the right hon. Member for Derby that it is well at times to treat irresponsible speeches with contempt. But sometimes they go too far, and that was the case with the hon. Member for East Leyton last Sunday night at the Albert Hall. The charge arises out of that speech, and the hon. Member will be tried in the ordinary way before a London police magistrate.

Mr. MILLS: Does the right hon. Gentleman so regard the speech delivered by the Secretary of State for War in the City of London last week—

Captain STANLEY WILSON: It was not against the Crown.

Mr. MILLS: Does the right hon. Gentleman so regard the speech delivered by the Secretary for War in the City last week, in which he referred to the Labour movement of this country as rascals and rapscallions?

Captain REDMOND: May I ask why the hon. Member for East Leyton was not arrested in England, and why this ancient historic university should have been insulted in the way it has been by having an English Member arrested there?

Mr. SHORTT: I do not know of any such speech as that referred to by the
hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills). I may say in reply to the hon. Member for Waterford (Captain Redmond) that I did not ask the hon. Member for East Leyton to go to Trinity College.

Captain REDMOND: But why was he not arrested in England?

Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the meeting which this terrible person was to address was to be presided over by Mr. Justice Samuels, the late Attorney-General for Ireland under the Coalition Government; whether Mr. Justice Samuels knew of the speech to be delivered by the hon. Gentleman, whether the authorities of the College knew about the speech, and why was the hon. Member for East Leyton not arrested here and not allowed to leave this country? Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that there is the deepest resentment among the Unionists, who constitute the overwhelming body of students in Trinity College, at this historic Society having been insulted by the disgraceful proceedings of this character?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of some of these questions.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ADAMSON: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal if he can inform the House what business is to be taken next week.

Mr. BONAR LAW: It will be necessary to take the Committee on the Financial Resolution of the Ministry of Health Bill as the first Order on Monday. After that, from day to day, we shall proceed with the Agriculture Bill.

Mr. DEVLIN: On only one day a week is priority given to Irish questions. As the Prime Minister reaches his questions at Question No. 25, cannot it be arranged for Irish questions to follow the questions of the Prime Minister? There are 17 Irish questions unanswered to-day, and one of them, standing in my own name, is the most important question on the Paper.

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is endeavoured once a week to give Irish questions precedence. I will inquire into the suggestion of the hon. Member, but I am quite sure my hon. Friend need not be
dismayed, as he will get some other opportunity of putting his important question.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the hon. Gentleman accept a suggestion made by an hon. Member behind me that he should give us a whole day, on Friday, for Irish questions?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think there is any objection to that, but I am afraid there would hardly be a quorum for that purpose.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Did not the right hon. Gentleman give this House a deliberate pledge that the Agriculture Bill would be the first Order of the Day on Monday? Can he say how long the Committee on the Ministry of Health Resolution will take, and whether Scottish Members representing agriculture need come up on Monday or not?

Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. and gallant Friend is mistaken. I did not give a pledge that the Agriculture Bill would be taken as the first Order.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: It amounted to that.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I had expected that the Committee on the Ministry of Health Bill Financial Resolutions would have been taken before Monday, and had I known it would not, we should probably have had a Friday sitting. Having once intimated that we would not sit on Friday, I do not think it fair to call a sitting to-morrow. I hope the stage will not take long. It ought not to do so.

Colonel GREIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. and gallant Member who put the question to him himself objected to the Agriculture Bill being taken on Monday, as being inconvenient for the Scottish Members?

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I said nothing of the sort?

Mr. SPEAKER: That must be settled outside.

Mr. R. McNEILL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is proposed to continue the Ministry of Health Bill, in view of the fact that the Second Reading was carried by Ministers and the
Labour party against the majority of their followers?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That is a fact of which I was not aware.

Mr. MacVEAGH: You were saved by the Labour party.

Mr. BONAR LAW: At any rate, the Second Reading was carried, and it certainly is the intention of the Government that the Bill should go to Committee.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I suppose the stage of the Ministry of Health Bill to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred is the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That is so, nothing but the Financial Resolution.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose before the end of this Session to bring in a Bill to reduce the salaries of Ministers?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Certainly there is no prospect of such a Bill this Session.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: If such a thing is contemplated, will the right hon. Gentleman not consider the advisability of increasing the wages of Members first?

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House at its rising this day do adjourn till Monday next."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

4.0 P.M.

Mr. HOGGE: This is a proposal to adjourn the House until Monday at a period of the Session when Government business is pressing. Before we agree to such an adjournment, before we decide on not taking a sitting to-morrow, I should like to ask either the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House what are the intentions of the Government with regard to the Anti-Dumping Bill and the Licensing Bill? We have been told that these are to be introduced this Session, but we have not been told that they are to be taken through all their stages. If they are to go through all their stages, we shall require all the time unless we are to sit right up till Christmas. Therefore, before the House is asked to agree not to sit on Friday, I think we ought to know whether the Bills on the Paper now
are the extent of the Government programme and whether they do not propose to do anything else but simply introduce and take the Second Reading of the Licensing Bill and the Dumping Bill. Unless we get satisfactory assurance, I do not think that we ought to agree not to sit to-morrow.

Mr. BONAR LAW: That is a very alarming threat, but I do not think that my hon. Friend will have power to carry it out by himself.

Mr. HOGGE: We could have a Division.

Mr. BONAR LAW: With regard to the Adjournment over to-morrow, I think the House must leave a little latitude to those, who are responsible for the conduct of its business. We do not wish to lose any time, but we deliberately came to the conclusion, in view of the present position of business, not to ask the House to meet on Friday, unless we could put before it something immediately necessary to carry. It was done to meet what I believe to be the convenience of the House.
With regard to the general programme for this Session, I have already said that I think it will be a great advantage to the House that we should be able at the earliest possible moment to say exactly what we propose to take during this Session, and I hope to be able to do that some day next week.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, "That this House at its rising this day do adjourn till Monday next."

BILLS PRESENTED.

LIQUOR CONTROL (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL,

"to continue temporarily the Defence of the Realm (Liquor Control) Regulations, 1915, and any Regulations amending the same, and to make further provisions with respect to the application thereof; and to substitute a new authority for the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) as the prescribed Government authority under the said Regulations; and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. SKORTT; supported by Sir John Baird and Mr. Fisher; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill No. 232.]

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL,

"to amend the Law with respect to Customs in the Isle of Man," presented Ly Mr. BALDWIN; to be read a Second time, upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill No. 233.]

IRISH LAND BILL,

"to amend the Law relating to the occupation and ownership of land in Ireland," presented by Sir LAMING WORTHINGTON-EVANS; supported by Mr. Secretary Shortt and Mr. Fisher; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill No. 234.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Captain CRAIG reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Ministry of Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill): Dr. Addison, Sir William [...]yland Adkins, Sir Francis Blake, Mr. Charles Edwards, Colonel Greig, Major Molson, Lieut.-Colonel Raw, Mr. Robert Richardson, Mr. Seddon, Mr. Swan, Mr. Trevelyan Thomson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alfred Warren, Colonel Leslie Wilson, Earl Winterton, and Sir Kingsley Wood.

Captain CRAIG further reported from the Committee: That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Mr. Newbould; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Aneurin Williams.

STANDING COMMITTEE B

Captain CRAIG further reported from the Committee: That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Criminal Injuries (Ireland) Bill): Mr. William Coote; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Lynn.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Sixth Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read;

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 209.]

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third Time."—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]

Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words, "upon this day three months."
In following such a course regarding this measure, the Labour party are acting quite consistently with the attitude that they have maintained towards the Bill from the first day. It may be remembered that on the Second Reading my right hon. Friend the Member for the Platting Division (Mr. Clynes), on behalf of the party, moved that the Bill should be read a Second Time that day six months. During the Committee stage the party put down Amendments which in their opinion would have removed some of the most objectionable and dangerous parts of the Bill. Being frustrated in our attempts to amend the measure in accordance with our ideas of the better government of Ireland, we refused to take any further responsibility for the Committee and the Report stages, but, so convinced are we that this Bill will miserably fail to settle the Irish question, that on Third Reading we renew our efforts to defeat it and to prevent it from being placed upon the Statute Book. Never in our history has there been such great need for setting aside any desire to take any party advantage or to give expression to personal prejudices and so-called religious animosities as at the present time. Instead of providing a satisfactory solution of the problem, the Government policy, if allowed to develop upon the present disastrous lines, will inevitably have the gravest consequences to the Empire.
To-day many of us stood beside an Empire grave. We did not know who was the warrior. For all I know it may have been my own boy, for up to the present I have not been able to discover his grave. It may have been the boy of an Irish father or mother, because we are aware that many of those who fell in the War belonged to Ireland. Of this we are
assured, that the warrior, whoever he may be, is our common property; he is of our common stock, and he paid the Great Sacrifice for the common heritage of the people of this Empire. I want to put it to the Government, whether in their opinion this day of all others is an appropriate time for passing a Bill which, in the opinion of many Members of this House, will only go still further to embitter the relationship between the Irish people and ourselves. Already our methods of government in Ireland have done almost irreparable damage to our prestige and reputation among the other nations of the world for good government and for fair dealing. Day after day, as we open our newspapers, and read the terrible accounts of the things that are occurring in Ireland, we are absolutely ashamed of our methods of governing that country. Throughout the world the reputation of the British Empire as the champion of oppressed nations and of small peoples never stood higher than it did at the close of the great War. Our stupid, senseless, mailed-fist policy in Ireland is simply taking away from us much of the credit we earned in the course of that great struggle.
Does this Bill now under consideration provide us a way out of the terrible situation in which we find ourselves? On Second Reading the Prime Minister, in the course of an able and eloquent speech, said that he was sanguine enough to believe that the Bill would gradually work a union of the North and the South, a union of Protestant and Catholic, a union of Britain and Ireland, a real union in which all would be good partners in a great concern of which all would be proud. Does any hon. or right hon. Gentleman in his heart really believe that the application of this Bill to the ills that beset the body politic in Ireland will have the result which the Prime Minister said that it would have in the quotation which I have just made from his speech? In order to test that, we had better see what the parties most intimately concerned in the Bill have to say about the matter. I take, first, the opinion of those who represent that Northern part of Ireland that will be granted a Parliament of its own. The hon. and gallant Member for South Antrim (Captain Craig) in the course of the Second Reading Debate stated:
It has been said that this Bill lends itself to the union of Ulster and the rest of
Ireland. I would not be fair to the House if I lent the slightest hope of that union arising in the lifetime of any man in this House. I do not believe it for a moment.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman went on to state:
We do see in this Bill the realisation of the objects which we aimed at when we raised our Volunteer force and when we armed ourselves in 1914.
He stated further:
The Bill to-day is the amending Bill which was promised at that time, and because it gives Ulster a Parliament of its own, and sets up a state of affairs which will prevent, I believe for all time, Ulster being forced into a Parliament in Dublin without its consent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March, 1920, cols. 984–5-6, vol. 127.]
You have there the opinion of the Northern section of the Irish people who are most intimately concerned in this measure, and I put it to Members of the House that the quotation I have just made from the speech then delivered by the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not give us much hope that this Bill will be the means of joining together the two sections of the Irish people in that happy union that was outlined by the Prime Minister in his peroration on the Second Reading.
I have been somewhat surprised at the attitude of many Members in this House, especially the Unionist Members from the North of Ireland, in accepting this Bill and leaving the fate of their political friends and social comrades in the South to the tender mercies of a Parliament for the South of Ireland. We on these Benches have been in the habit of pointing out to our own supporters the way in which other classes represented in this House stick together when their own interests are affected, but in this instance they appear to have forgotten their class-consciousness. I am free to prophesy that the minority of the South will receive as good treatment and consideration as the minority in the North. Perhaps the majority of the Ulster Members realise that. What is the position taken up by the other section, the men of the South and West, towards this measure?
Their answer to the Government and to this House is that they will never accept this Bill as a settlement of their claim to self-government. They say to us quite frankly, "We will never be consenting parties to the division of our country into two parts." They say to us also, "We
are tired of your unredeemed pledges and your broken promises. We are sick of the Irish question being made the shuttlecock of British politics. All that we ask now is that you will clear out. All that we ask, as far as this Bill is concerned, is that you will put in a Clause stating that it will not apply to Ireland." They further say to us quite frankly, "We have set up our own government, and we are prepared to stand by our own government." We, on our part, in order to maintain our old hold on the Irish people, continue in the good old plan, coercion, with the result that, at the moment, we have a campaign of murder and of reprisal that has seldom been equalled in the long history of our unfortunate relationship with the people of Ireland. No one regrets the murders and reprisals that are taking place in Ireland more than the Members of the Labour party, and I say here and now that, in my personal opinion, if the 1914 Act had been put into operation, the whole Irish question would have been settled and done with. But the legitimate rights of the Irish people have been withheld from them, and now, when they put forward a claim which Members of this House, and possibly a considerable section of the people of this country, consider to be an illegitimate claim, how can they be blamed? At all events, they have logic on their side. What is the good of the Prime Minister talking about self-determination in Czecho-Slovakia and Poland, and other far away places in Europe, and talking obout freedom "as far away as Paris is," and refusing to concede the same principle to our own people in Ireland?
The great bulk of the Irish people in the South and West are, undoubtedly, demanding complete independence and the recognition of an Irish Republic, but I do not believe that in their heart of hearts they really want a republic; they are simplyputting forward, in my opinion, their maximum demand. The Labour party do not believe in an Irish Republic. The Labour party do not want to see an Irish Republic established. They do not think it would be good for the people of this country or for Ireland. At the same time, the Labour party believe that the Irish people should be given the right to determine for themselves, and, if you give them that right, you give them perfect freedom of choice. I am sure that it is
not beyond the wisdom of Government to devise ways and means for producing an atmosphere which will bring out the best in the Irish people, and induce them to give an expression of their feelings of kinship with us. I have no doubt that, in the course of any reply that may be made to what I am now stating, I shall be asked, "What does the Labour party propose, if this Bill is such an unlikely measure to produce the result which we all desire?" I want frankly to face the situation from the point of view of the Labour party. We say that, first of all, the British army of occupation should be withdrawn, and the coercive measures which are now being applied to Ireland repealed. The presence of large bodies of troops, and the rules and regulations of Dublin Castle, are helping to reduce Ireland to ashes, and are driving away all possibility of a peaceful solution of the problem. If you want to create the proper atmosphere for finding a satisfactory solution of this age-long problem, in our opinion, you must remove that enormous army that is in Ireland.

Captain STANLEY WILSON: Are the police to be removed as well?

Mr. ADAMSON: The hon. Member will have his opportunity later on. I have every faith in the sincerity of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, but I strongly believe that he is ignorant of many of the things that are happening in that unhappy country. I believe that he has been furnished with information which in many ways bears little relation to the truth. Let the army of occupation be withdrawn, and let arrangements be made at once for the calling together of a Constituent Assembly, elected on the basis of proportional representation by a free, equal, and secret vote. That, in our opinion, would create such a response from Irishmen in all parts of the world as has never been given to any former proposal put forward by the respective Governments of Great Britain. Let that Constituent Assembly draw up a Constitution for Ireland, on the understanding that that Constitution shall be accepted subject to two conditions. The first is that it affords protection to the minority.
Again and again, in the course of my Membership of this House, I have heard responsible Irishmen from these Benches giving the most distinct pledges that it was possible for men to give, that every step would be taken to protect the minority,
and to remove any fear that they might have of unjust treatment at the hands of the majority; and in interviews which I have had with representative Irishmen, I have been assured again and again that the majority in Ireland would be ready and willing to afford ample protection to the minority. The second condition is that the Constitution will prevent Ireland from becoming a military or naval menace. It may be said, by those who reply, that, under the scheme which I am putting forward on behalf of the Labour party, Ireland could declare itself a Republic if it so wished. I say that developments in Ireland have gone to such an extent that it is impossible to offer them now, with any chance of its being accepted, that which would have been accepted a few years ago as a settlement of this question. Ireland must be given full freedom of choice; that is where their self-determination comes in. On the other hand, we recognise that an independent Ireland would be a grave menace to this country, and it is self-determination on our part to say that the peace and safety of this realm shall be safeguarded. I am confident, however, that if Ireland be given a free choice, whether or not she elect to become a Republic, she will be anxious and eager to maintain a friendly and close relationship with the people of this country.
I put forward this suggestion on behalf of the Labour party as the method which we think should be adopted for the settling of this great problem. I have not much hope that this Government will accept it, but I am not going to close without making an appeal to the Government to withdraw the present Bill, and to get one put on the Statute Book at the earliest possible moment that will settle this question on a basis more in accordance with the feeling of the people of Ireland than this Bill does. Already I have said that we have been standing to-day beside a common grave. I hope that that experience will create in this House the atmosphere that is necessary for discussing this question in a new light, and in a different light from that in which it has been discussed on any former occasion. I hope that the Government will yet, even at the eleventh hour, withdraw the Bill, and introduce one that will create an atmosphere in Ireland that will make a satisfactory solution possible—an atmosphere that
will make the people of Ireland for the first time believe that we are in earnest, for the first time realise that they are to be taken into the commonwealth of the British nation as free and equal partners, enjoying all the benefits as well as having to undertake the responsibilities of that great commonwealth. I therefore move, "That this Bill be read the Third time this day three months."

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity of making an observation or two upon the remarkable speech to which we have just listened. I do not think it is necessary for me to take its points item by item, but it shows a remarkable change of front upon this question of legislative independence, within certain limits, for Ireland, on the part both of the right hon. Gentleman himself and of those who work with him. I certainly would not dream of challenging his statement that he is speaking on their behalf, because that is bound to be a certainty. From my very earliest days in politics, I remember this Irish question as one of the most important. It has blurred all our public discussions; it has interfered with our public affairs; it has, as the right hon. Gentleman says, been used by parties, I believe both Irish and English, for their own purposes, to blanket other and more important proposals, probably more than any other thing during the whole of my political career, and during, I am afraid, the political careers of almost all hon. Members present. At last it seems as though there is a possible opportunity of settling it; and now the men who, apparently, have supported every kind of proposal for giving greater powers to Irishmen to manage their affairs, turn round and say, "No, we do not like this Bill; there is something wrong about it somewhere. It does not meet with the approval of this end of Ireland; it does not meet with the approval of the other end of Ireland; it is not asked for by Ireland as a whole." It is a moral certainty that, if we were to wait until we got a measure through this House that was unanimously approved of by the whole of Ireland, we should never deal with the subject at all.
Whatis most remarkable about this business this afternoon is the change of front under such circumstances, because every time I remember when the right hon. Gen-
tleman (Mr. Asquith) fought so strenuously and placed the Home Rule Act upon the Statute Book—and I suppose I tramped with him into the Lobby hundreds of times—the violent and heated discussions and the passion displayed in discussing every line of those Bills constitute one of the most remarkable exhibitions of bitterness one has seen in British politics since I have been in the House and even before, and now we come to a point when a Home Rule Bill is introduced by those who have been opposed to the principle hitherto. That strikes me as a very important fact which cannot be overlooked. We may not agree with all that is proposed. I do not suppose any great measure ever received absolute unanimity so far as the opinion of Members of the House is concerned. There must be differences as to method and as to the actual concrete proposition itself, but on the general question, when it appears that we have got those who were the stumbling block to any form of legislative independence or self-government for Ireland to come into line with us, the Labour party say that is the moment when they ought to either fall to the rear or take a step to the right or left, whichever they choose to describe it. It is most regrettable if a single Labour man goes into the Lobby to-day, and I say that most emphatically, knowing the possible consequences of the attitude I take in my own constituency—it would be most regrettable if, on principle, any Labour man walks into the Lobby against a measure that is to give additional help to the Irish people to manage their own affairs We must confess that this is one of the most dangerous subjects this House can deal with. It is now not only a purely British question. It has become a world question. That is the unfortunate part of it.

Mr. DEVLIN: No, it is the fortunate part.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: Not from the purely Irish point of view. Probably from the English point of view it may be fortunate that the world now knows and begins to take notice of both sides of the question, and it is compelled to do so, and there is being gradually dissipated that idea that the British House of Commons presents a solid and hopelessly indifferent attitude to every aspiration that Irishmen put forward in a united
way. The unfortunate part of the business is that we have not to deal with a united Ireland. We cannot deal with a united Ireland, it does not exist, and we English Members therefore have to grope about between one idea and another as best we can, knowing that nothing we propose will be satisfactory if one end of Ireland is coerced into it by the other. Therefore we are limited to a certain extent in the way in which we can deal with this problem. It has become a world question, and it is necessary that we should do something at once to show that we are prepared to give the Irish people an opportunity of governing themselves. I do not recede an inch from the position I have taken up ever since I have been in the House. Legislative independence for Ireland within some limit is absolutely necessary. I also see that there are insurmountable difficulties in making one general Legislative Council for the whole country because of the fears that one section of Ireland have that they may be trampled upon by the other section of the Irish people. But here is an opportunity at last to avoid this difficulty. I do not look at the details of the Bill. Not nearly so important to me are they as the general structure of the measure. What is the general structure of the measure that seems to me so different from and more important than any other that has ever been proposed?
I admit I have not been in the country sufficiently long to make myself acquainted with the internal political discussions which have taken place amongst the different classes during the last three or four years; but I think I may fairly describe in my mind why I support this measure, and think, from the point of view of the general structure, it is the best measure that has been proposed for solving this difficulty, and I say that most deliberately. In the case of the Home Rule Act, which was passed on to the Statute Book by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Asquith), it was assumed that there was to be only one Parliament for Ireland, and the first possibility of organised violence in Ireland came out of that proposition. The first definite, dogged suggestion of refusing to obey the law came out of that one proposal. There is not the slightest doubt that we should have been obliged to use the British Army, if not in actual conflict with the North, at least as a coer-
cive measure behind to enforce that law, had it not been that the War intervened. I ask the Leader of the Labour party, is it possible to suggest one Parliament for Ireland to-day with the prospect of having to coerce one half under the other half? It is not possible to do anything of the kind. Therefore it seems to me you are obliged to proceed in any measure with a due recognition of the different mental and political outlooks in the North and the South, and tentatively, at the beginning of the operation and administration of your measure, make provision for the difference of opinion and mental outlook, which you do in this Bill by constituting two Parliaments, one for Ulster and one for the rest of Ireland.
If I understand the Bill aright and its general structure, we take the question of the unity of Ireland completely away from this Imperial Parliament. Those two Irish Parliaments are there, North and South. The moment Irish opinion says "We are one," those two Parliaments will not exist. I understand that the Bill automatically, from that moment, ceases and Ireland practically becomes one within the scope and authority that the Bill lays down. I do not think I am misreading the general structure of the Bill. I quite agree with the quotation the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adamson) made from a speech delivered by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Craig). That is true. He says he does not believe in the lifetime of any man Ireland will ever work under one Parliament. But that is not our fault. If we give Ireland the power to work under one Parliament, surely that is as much as we can do towards a solution of this difficulty, and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman is correct and the antipathies of the North and the South of Ireland are so deep-rooted and intense and permanent that it is utterly impossible for these two peoples to work together, does the right hon Gentleman propose to coerce them into one Parliament? His proposal is to withdraw the Army. What a contribution to the solution of the present situation! So far as I understand it, it is the only instrument of government that exists in the country at the moment. Whether it is good, bad or indifferent or whether it is the right sort of instrument or anything of the kind I am not for the moment concerned with. In the present situation of Ireland, with terrorism rampant, murder and
reprisal, reprisal and murder, backward and forward, that the Army should be removed! Why? That a peaceful condition should be secured and a Constituent Assembly called to decide the future government of Ireland.
I agree with the Constituent Assembly as a rule for deciding the future of any nation or people where the nation is a united people, but you do not get away from your difficulty if a constituent assembly representing an overwhelming majority of Catholics or of one political persuasion decides to present a code of laws or regulations for the future government of the country to give them a complete ascendency. Do you suppose you get away from the difficulty of being obliged to compel the minority to observe the majority's wishes merely by calling a convention? The mere name of constituent assembly does not sweep away all these deep-rooted differences that one sees so glaringly illustrated in the different Irish Benches in this House. You would still have the same difficulty to contend with. Supposing a Convention decided on a scheme by which they could decide the form of religious education for the whole of Ireland, and that is one of the things it ought to be able to decide. It is a moral certainty that if it decided to do it, it would raise the most violent opposition on the part of the Protestant North. You would have exactly the same difficulties to contend with after your Constituent Assembly had met and discussed the subject as you have at present. You get away from no difficulty whatever. But the removal of the Army, it strikes me very forcibly, would lead to such anarchy that you could never call a properly elected constituent assembly to deal with the problem at all, and therefore I suggest to Labour Members, sticking staunch to the principle of Home Rule, that a greater measure of self-government for Ireland should be conferred upon the Irish people and that it is sheer madness to vote against this Bill which first of all establishes the right to government without coercion either by the North or by the South. Then in the fulness of time, when acrimonious Debates, the murders and conspiracies have been forgotten, say in 20, 30 or 40 years' time, when a new generation has grown up that has forgotten this internecine war that is being carried on between the peoples
now, there in these two Councils they have the germ and power to call one Council together which shall give unity of purpose to the entire country. That is why I cannot understand the position of the Labour Members and why I am going to support the Government Bill.

Mr. ASQUITH: I stated at length, and in considerable detail, when the Second Reading of this Bill was under discussion the reasons why it appeared to me to offer a wholly inadequate and, indeed, an illusory solution of the problem with which it professes to grapple. Since then, the Bill has been through the stages of Committee and Report, and we now have it as far as this House is concerned in its final shape. In my judgment, so far as I am able to form one, it has not been improved in the process of further consideration. What does it amount to in the form to which we are now asked to give our final assent? It amounts to the grant to one part of Ireland, the North East corner of Ireland—what is sometimes very inaccurately described as Ulster—a Parliament which confessedly the majority of that area do not want. They would much prefer, ns all their accredited spokesmen have told us in the course of these Debates, to remain as they are. It offers them something which they do not want, but which they are content to accept, not with enthusiasm, not even with conviction, but because in their opinion it interposes an effectual, and, so far as they can foresee, a permanent barrier to the attainment of Irish national union. On the other hand, it offers to what is called the South of Ireland—again the term is a misnomer, for what is called the South of Ireland really means, in point of area and of population by far the greater part of Ireland—a Parliament not only which they do not want, but which, judging by-all the evidence that reaches us—and which there has been no attempt to controvert—they will not work. All the probabilities point to the so-called Southern Parliament of Ireland being from the first still-born and a dead letter. What if it does not function? If it will not take an active part in the government of that large part of the island? That probability has appeared to the framers of the Bill as so imminent that at the last stage, on the Report, they introduced a Clause expressly to provide for the con-
tingency and in the not improbable event of the South of Ireland repudiating this so-called boon, and it is to be refused representative institutions either here or in Ireland and committed both for legislation and administration to a non-electod and irresponsible body of Crown nominees.
This is the Bill which my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Colonel J. Ward) has just described as the most generous form of Home Rule which has yet been offered to Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] This is a Bill which, apparently, in tho opinion of a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite, is a generous form of Home Rule; a Bill which gives to part of Ireland a power of self-government for which they do not ask, and gives to the rest of Ireland a power which they will not use, and will not use for very good reasons, and for which, if they do not use it, you propose to substitute Crown Colony government. I maintain to the full every objection I felt and expressed on the Second Reading. I never was more certain of anything in the whole domain of politics than that, if this Bill passes into law, and takes its place upon the [...]atute Book, it will provide not even an istalment of hope or promise, let alone o[...] practical result, in the solution of this secular problem.
Since the Second Reading, social conditions in Ireland, and particularly the condition of the country in regard to the maintenance of law and order, have steadily deteriorated We are face to face with a situation which is without a parallel in our own country. I am not going to enlarge upon that aspect of the matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I do not understand that interruption. I am not going to enlarge upon that aspect of the matter because I think it not only irrelevant but, in the circumstances in which we are placed and in the atmosphere in which we are now, is one which we had better for the moment, if we can, leave out of consideration. I am quite prepared, as everybody knows, at the proper time to go into the matter, and I have very strong feelings about it. But I have risen to make an appeal, not only to the Government, but to Irishmen. We are met here on the anniversary of the Armistice, which was concluded two years ago, after four years of unexampled struggle and sacrifice, to put an end to the domination of military force in
Europe, and to lay the foundations, as we hoped and believed, and as I still hope and believe, for a new and better era of freedom, as well as of peace. Some of us have taken part to-day in those moving ceremonies, more moving because they were so simple and unstudied, in which we celebrated the second anniversary of that great event. Could we here, in the House of Commons, make a better or more worthy use of the association and of the emotion which such an anniversary properly, and, indeed, necessarily, arouses, than by trying, if we can, by a concerted effort, to find a basis for a real settlement here at home of the greatest and by far the most urgent of our domestic problems? I have been engaged, as some of my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench have been engaged, with whom I have been associated in days gone by, in the controversies which for over thirty years have raged round this Irish question. In some respects, at any rate to the superficial observer, there has never been a blacker or more unpromising moment than the present. I do not take that view.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): Hear, hear.

5.0. P.M.

Mr. ASQUITH: I have believed, and I still believe, that it is possible to impress upon the Irish people a sense of our sincerity, and the joint voice of this House would be the most authentic and authoritative exponent of such a feeling. The men who are engaged in murder and outrage, whether on one side or the other, are a relatively insignificant minority of the population, although they happen for a moment to be on the forefront of the stage and to occupy and absorb so much attention. We must strive to impress upon the minds of the Irish people as a whole, who are not to be identified or associated in any real sense with the organs and ministers of this terrible campaign of murder and outrage, that they can trust us; that there is a real, genuine feeling which pervades the body politic in this country, without distinction of party or section, that there is much that we acknowledge and repent of in the past; that we have many arrears to make good in our Imperial duty to this great people, not great in point of population, not great in point of wealth, but great in history, great in the splendid service which as a whole, and by many men of genius and courage, it has ren-
dered; great in the long succession of illustrious individuals who have contributed in the building of our Empire. We must strive to impress upon the Irish people that we are ready and willing to meet them in a frank and in a generous spirit, not to secure the triumph either of the minority or of the majority in that country, but consistently with the provision of every safeguard, both for our own strategic and Imperial interests, and for the protection, be it in the North or in the South, I care not which, of minorities that might suffer but for these safeguards, that we are ready and willing in a frank, generous and ungrudging spirit to give to them the great boon of absolute self-government in regard to their own internal affairs. I believe that we might then impress upon the minds of the Irish people—and it can only be done in this House, so far as this House remains, as I hope it will remain, the authoritative and representative exponent of British, and, indeed, Imperial tradition—that if they will come together on that basis to deal with us, we on that same basis are perfectly prepared to come together and deal with them. I am not speaking vague words; I am speaking with a strong sense of responsibility, and not only of responsibility, but, I have no hesitation in saying, of hope; but it must be a joint effort.
It must be ungrudging in spirit. It must be generous in its conception of the possibilities and potentialities of the future. To what better purpose can we apply the associations of this hour and this day than to bring ourselves into the mood to induce the Irish people, the great bulk of the Irish people, to turn their back upon, repudiating, as I am sure in their hearts and consciences they do, these foul and barbarous methods, by which, in their wilder moments and through their wildest spirits, they are giving expression to feelings, in some ways not unnatural in their origin, but feelings which, in their saner and soberer moments, they know to be unworthy of Irishmen and of Christians. If we can only do that, I have believed and still believe that we can within a measurable distance of time banish these old controversies, with their traditional watchwords of division and animosity, bring the two peoples together in a spirit, not only of fraternity, but
of far-seeing statesmanship, and secure at last the fruition of the long delayed and often frustrated hopes of the best friends of both Ireland and England in a union of peace.

The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend has made a very eloquent and exalted appeal for a better temper in the settlement of this long and unhappy controversy between Great Britain and Ireland. So far as this Government are concerned, we are only too anxious to respond to that appeal in the spirit in which it was made and in the spirit in which it was received by the House of Commons. There is nothing with which Great Britain would be better pleased than a frank reconciliation with Ireland. The British people are not a vindictive people. To them it would be a source of joy and pleasure to extend the right hand of fellowship to Ireland and let the past be forgiven and forgotten, so that the two nations should proceed together side by side to solve the great problems of the Empire and of humanity.
Unfortunately, the difficulties, as always, are first of all difficulties of temper and then practical difficulties. Take temper first. It is one of the misfortunes of the history of the relations between Britain and Ireland that they are never quite in the same temper at the same moment. When Ireland desired conciliation, England in the past has been hostile. When Britain has been anxious for conciliation, Ireland has been angry. It is one of the curses of the relations of the two countries, which have pursued them, that they have always been at cross purposes. They do not understand each other. Perhaps their racial obscurities, I will not say racial antipathies, but racial divergencies, have made it difficult for them to understand each other, and, of course, there are religious difficulties as well. These have tended to create and promote misunderstandings and suspicions. There is nothing that baffles one more in dealing with Ireland than the atmosphere of suspicion in which the whole problem is considered and discussed. My right hon. Friend knows that from his long experience, longer than mine, in dealing with the problem. When proposals are put forward in all sincerity they are always viewed with great suspicion. There is
suspicion in Ireland, towards Ireland and from Ireland. The trouble has been not so much in discussing particular details, but in scattering the cloud of suspicion that obscures the intentions and the goodwill of one nation towards the other.
If my right hon. Friend will allow me to say so, and I shall certainly avoid controversy as much as possible because I do not think that it is desirable at this stage—I am not sure that it is desirable at any stage—of this Bill, the Bill may have defects, but I am absolutely certain that it has merits that have never been acknowledged and have never even been considered. I ventured the other day to put to an audience of my own fellow-countrymen, who are as proud of their nationality as Irishmen are, and I would like to put to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Labour party, who I am sorry is not here, how Scotland would regard a measure—there is a very strong Scottish Home Ruler, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Murray MacDonald) present—which would confer on Scotland full powers for dealing with its own education, its agriculture, its land question, its labour problems, its Poor Law, its local government, questions of health, railways, liquor, law and order, old age pensions, unemployment, health insurance. Would anyone say that a measure conferring, say, either upon Wales or Scotland all those powers would be regarded by either of these two countries, which are full of pride in their nationality, as a niggardly, mean, paltry measure that conferred no powers upon the peoples of these countries?
I only want to put this in order to show how, whenever you come to Ireland, this atmosphere of morbid suspicion somehow obscures a fair consideration of every proposal whenever it is put forward. That is why it is so important to remove those suspicions before you can consider any proposals which are put forward. Until that is done, I am firmly convinced you will get no measure that would be accepted by the Irish people. I will just point out the difficulty in which my two right hon. Friends have been placed by the demand that they should satisfy the Irish people in their present temper. My right hon. Friend has put forward proposals of a very extreme character. He himself would be the first to recognise that. They are of
a character which the people of this country would not look at, and I should be very surprised if even the bulk of his own supporters would support him I am not putting this forward in any spirit of controversy, but in order to point out the difficulties which every friend of self-government in Ireland is in at the present moment in trying to set up some scheme which would be accepted by the Irish people in their present temper. He has been driven to propose something which gives Ireland the power to set up an Army and a Navy, and even proposes foreign relations. Without foreign relations there is no self-determination.

Mr. ASQUITH: My proposal is to give Ireland no power which is not given to one of the Dominions.

The PRIME MINISTER: I quite agree. Australia not only has the power to have an army, but has an army. Canada has not only the power to have an army, but has an army, and Australia has a navy as well. That is what I want to point out, that if you try to satisfy Ireland in her present rather aggressive, and if I may say so, unreasoning frame of mind, you are driven to proposals that Irishmen in their better temper would never dream of putting forward. I am not going into controversial questions in pointing this out. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Labour party has also been driven by that very desire to put forward proposals which are quite unacceptable I am certain to the vast majority of the workers of this country. May I point out where he has got to to-day. He has talked about giving them the right to self-determination. He gave the illustration of Czecho-Slovakia. What does that mean? Czecho-Slovakia is an independent sovereign State; it is a Republic. It is just as independent of Great Britain as France or Belgium or Italy. If you give the right to Ireland to determine what form of government she likes, the majority of those who speak for Ireland make it clear that that is what they would claim. My right hon. Friend gives the precedent of Czecho-Slovakia. Is it conceivable? Let us see what the policy means. He sets before us the spectacle of the debris of the Austrian Empire after a shattering war as something that Great Britain ought to apply in principle when it comes to deal with Home Rule for Ire-
land. That is inconceivable. You have a beaten and broken Empire like Austria. I cannot conceive of any policy that would be more disastrous to Ireland than that policy.
The whole interest of Ireland is in the closest association with the United Kingdom. Just see what it means. If you now give Ireland that choice, if at this moment you withdraw all your troops, summon your assemblies, and leave it to the majority of Sinn Feiners, pledged to a Republic, to declare what they want, they will say, "We want an independent Irish Republic." They have said so. I put this question to my right hon. Friend (Mr. Adamson). If in this assembly they said that that was what they wanted, would he give it to them? That is rather important. It is important from the point of view of Great Britain, but I am now discussing it from the point of view of Ireland. What would happen would be that Ireland in a moment of temper—undoubtedly there is temper—would give an answer which would be disastrous to her own future, and which does not represent in the least her own real mind. Do not, therefore, let us talk about self-determination. You cannot, at the present moment, propose anything to Ireland which anyone now is in a position to accept, which would not be disastrous to Ireland itself, and which the whole of the British Empire would not resist to the utmost of its strength. Therefore there are only two things you can do. You can propose what this Parliament, representing not merely Great Britain, but representing Ireland itself, thinks it is fair and reasonable should be given to Ireland. I have given a list of things which we propose. Does anyone deny that that is conferring upon Ireland a measure of self-government of the most generous character?

Mr. DEVLIN: Yes.

The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend is bound to deny it. But look at the list. It is a list dealing with practically every question that affects the life of the people. Their pursuits, the education of their children, the building of their houses, the health of their homes, the railways that carry their business, their social habits—all those questions are left to the Irish Parliament to decide.

Mr. DEVLIN: Everything but the money powers?

The PRIME MINISTER: The money powers conferred by this Bill are more extensive than the powers conferred by the Bill of 1914, which my hon. Friend supported—much more. There is more fiscal autonomy in this Bill than in the Bill of 1914. There were practically no powers of taxation in the 1914 Bill; the taxation was to be levied by the Imperial Parliament and collected by Imperial officers, and was to be handed over to the Irish Parliament. In the present Bill very considerable powers of taxation are given. In addition there is this fact. In the Bill of 1914 the Irish Parliament had only £500,000 margin with which to deal. That margin came down to £200,000, and ultimately was to vanish, I forget in how many years. By this Bill there is a margin of £9,000,000 provided for the Irish Parliament. How can my hon. Friend, under these circumstances, say that this is not a Bill giving the most generous measure of self-government yet proposed for Ireland? It has been impossible for us to get these facts to the Irish mind. I do not believe that any Irishman really knows these things at the present moment. He is in a temper. I am not going to say who is responsible. My hon. Friend will say we are responsible. Well, let us accept his view. The thing that matters is that Irishmen at present are in a temper, and they will not look at these things. They do not know them; they do not care about them. They say, "We will have nothing but a republic."
What is wanted is an atmosphere in Ireland where you can get calm consideration of what has been proposed, of what the Imperial Parliament suggests, and of any further suggestions which Ireland has to make. We have never ruled that out. On the contrary, both here and outside, at the request of the Government and on behalf of the Government, I invited spokesmen who claimed that they had authority to speak on behalf of the Irish people, to come forward and discuss our proposal, and to put forward any alternative proposals of their own, subject to certain well-defined conditions. There are certain conditions that, as far as the British public are concerned, are condi-
tions which are quite immovable. It is better that Ireland should understand them. There are certain things we could not give them. We cannot agree to anything which tears up the United Kingdom. I have heard pretty well all the discussions on Home Rule in this House. I did not hear the first Debate, but I remember reading it very closely. I remember how Mr. Gladstone, when he introduced his Bill and advocated it, constantly dwelt upon the fact that the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament and the integrity of the United Kingdom must be unimpaired. Those who criticised his measures always said that under the provisions of his various Bills there were not adequate guarantees for the preservation of the United Kingdom. Every Home Ruler, English, Scotch, Welsh and, I believe, Irish, accepted the integrity of the United Kingdom as a fundamental basis for Home Rule. That is the position which we take to-day. Therefore we regard this as an insuperable and immovable condition.
The independence of Ireland as a Sovereign State we would not recognise, not merely because it would be injurious to the United Kingdom, but because it would be injurious to Ireland. It would be a source of weakness, it might be fatal to the security of Britain; it would be a constant source of temptation to Ireland, and it would be a constant source of temptation to others who wanted to injure the United Kingdom, try intrigue in Ireland. Neither for the sake of Britain nor for the sake of Ireland can we contemplate anything which would set up in Ireland an independent Sovereign State. It is no use quoting Czecho-Slovakia. Czecho-Slovakia is an independent sovereign State. If my right hon. Friend proposes that I venture to say to him he will not get the working people of this country behind him. What is the second condition? We could not consent to anything which would weaken the strategic security of the United Kingdom by depriving us of complete control over the harbours of Ireland for strategic purposes. I am glad that my right hon. Friend (Mr. Asquith) accepts that position.

Mr. ASQUITH: I have said so several times.

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, but let me point out to my right hon. Friend that
when he talked about Dominion Home Rule he did not quite mean it.

Mr. ASQUITH: I would give to Ireland the same power, neither greater nor less than that given to the self-governing Dominions.

The PRIME MINISTER: It shows the danger of using these phrases. Australia has complete strategic control over her own harbours, and so has Canada. Can anyone contend that Canada and Australia and South Africa have not the most complete strategic control over their own harbours?

Mr. ADAMSON: And they have not been a menace to this country.

The PRIME MINISTER: I agree, and that is the difficulty. If my right hon. Friend will take the trouble to read the documents which the persistence of an hon. Member has induced the Government to publish, I am not so sure that he will be quite so pleased when he sees them. He will also see what a menace the creeks of Ireland could be to the security of the Empire, how they plotted to use them, how they did use them, and how they would have used them much more fatally to the detriment of this country if we had not had a complete grip on them. That grip we mean to retain. It is vital to Britain. It would be a fatal temptation to Ireland. It is not well that a small nation like Ireland should be tempted, lured by the enemies of Britain into a course that would be disastrous to herself. Therefore upon that, so far as the present Government is concerned, we can have no parley. We cannot consent to anything which will enable Ireland to organise an army and a navy of her own. It is well that this should be stated again. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Asquith) said one day that I used a very ridiculous figure when I said that Ireland could have had an army of 500,000 men. As a matter of fact, during the War we raised in Ireland something like 100,000 men.

Mr. MOLES: A hundred and seventy thousand.

The PRIME MINISTER: A hundred and seventy thousand.

Mr. DEVLIN: Not bad for a country oppressed.

The PRIME MINISTER: We raised out of a population practically of forty-two
millions between six and seven millions of men for the War in Great Britain. That is one-sixth or one-seventh, and if we raised a similar force in Ireland we would raise about from six or seven hundred thousand men. Scotland, as a matter of fact, sent six or seven hundred thousand men, and in my country (Wales) with a population of two millions we raised between two and three hundred thousand men. So that five hundred thousand men for Ireland is not a figure which is unreasonable, having regard to what France and Great Britain raised in the War. If powers were given to Ireland to raise a conscript army it would be a menace to Britain, and I warn Labour Members who have been taking a leading part in opposing conscription, that if you were to have an army of that kind in Ireland, which under full powers of Dominion Home Rule would be given to it, conscription in this country would be inevitable. As for the Navy, there are smaller countries than Ireland that have got navies and you do not want an expensive navy to be formidable to this country. Submarine bases, submarines and small craft would be dangerous. It is tempting Ireland. She does not need it in the least for her national life. She could only use it for her destruction, for the peril of Britain, and neither for the sake of Britain nor of Ireland does this Government contemplate any proposal of thatkind. The other proposal is one which I think I learned at the feet of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Asquith), and that is that under no conditions was Ulster to be coerced into the acceptance of any Parliament into which she did not choose to come. My right hon. Friend was also in the same Cabinet as myself when my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley made that declaration. So we are all at one on this. That I stand by, and so does my right hon. Friend.

Mr. DEVLIN: Were any of the right hon. Gentlemen on this Bench, or the right hon. Gentleman when he was next in importance to the late Prime Minister, ever committed to a Parliament for Ulster?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is a different proposition. The proposition which I am maintaining now is that we are in honour bound by the statements which we made not to consent to any scheme of self-government for Ireland
which will involve the coercion of Ulster into acceptance. That is the proposal. Whether you deal with that by leaving Ulster as it was or by setting up a separate Parliament, is a matter of expediency as to the best way of dealing with it. In my judgment we have taken the way that is likeliest to lead to the unity of Ireland. I will give my reason. Those are the main propositions which we stand by, but beyond them you have the whole domain of self-government for Ireland. I am not going to discuss the question of fiscal autonomy because I do not think that, if there is going to be a discussion, it will be advanced by a discussion at this stage. That is my view. Fiscal autonomy in principle we have conceded to a much larger extent than in the Bill of 1914. We have provisions in this Bill that will enable the Council of Ireland when there is Irish Union, real union, even to have powers to take into consideration the transferring of Customs and Excise to the Irish Parliament. I will speak quite frankly to the House on this subject because it is better it should be done. On merits I certainly would prefer that the Customs, if not the Excise, the Customs certainly, should be an Imperial tribute. Every country that has started by giving Customs to its constituent parts has always ended by surrendering to the centre. In the Dominions that has happened. In Australia, South Africa, I believe in Canada, wherever there has been unity they always began by surrendering the powers of Customs to the centre, and there are obvious reasons why that should be the case. I do not think the United States of America ever gave Customs to the States. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I am told the same thing happened in the United States and that at first the various States got the Customs and afterwards surrendered them.
The same process has been followed with regard to Income Tax. The United States of America was crippled by the fact that the Income Tax was a State collection, and one of the greatest struggles they had was to secure the Income Tax as a central tribute. It was ineffective as a State tax. You did not get as much out of it in the aggregate because of the splitting up of the machine. Ireland would lose, in my judgment, by making it a national tax instead of a United Kingdom tax. Germany suffered in exactly the same way. They found that
their central authorities were largely crippled owing to the fact that the Income Tax was sometimes a municipal tax and sometimes a State tax. For that reason, on the merits, I should regret very much if we did not take counsel from the experience and practice of nearly every State in the world who keep this tax as an Imperial tax. All I say at the present moment is that when you come to discuss it there is a great difference between discussing it with people who frankly say, "We will give up our ideas of independence, we are not asking for a Republic, we do not want to be sovereign State, we will enter into the partnership of the United Kingdom, and we will work with you heartily." That is one thing, but to tender it, when in itself it is not a very good thing, to people who say, "We will use it to set up an independent and hostile Republic," would be folly. May I point out the danger of the proposal which has been very often put before us, "Why do you not put it in? We can assure you chat Ireland will accept it." In the first place, the people who tell me that always admit that they have no right to speak for Ireland. I have never met a man who himself said he had the right to speak for Ireland who told me Ireland would accept it. If you did put it in the Bill, if the whole machinery of the Customs was handed over to a people who, in so far as their public professions are concerned, remain rootedly hostile to the United Kingdom, rootedly determined to set up an independent Republic, and to use all this machinery, not honestly to work the Act, but for hostile purposes, it would not be so easy to take it back afterwards. I will not say it would be impossible, but it would increase your difficulties. Therefore I say your autonomy is something which we have never ruled out of discussion, but it can only be discussed with people who accept the conditions that I have laid down on behalf of the Government as to the relations between Ireland and Great Britain.
I agree with my right hon. Friend that although there are very unhopeful features in the story of Ireland to-day, the situation is not one that bids us despair. The relations between Britain and Ireland have passed through phases just as desperate, just as dark, just as fierce, just as sad. It is one of the curses
which have pursued the partnership between Ireland and Britain that, at the moment of greatest hope, something has always intervened to shatter that hope. It is no use referring to one thing. You have only to look at the whole story of Ireland, and you will find it is full of them. I am trying to get away now from any controversies. I am trying to review fairly a serial of misunderstanding which I hope is coming to an end. It may be that it was an Irish soldier we honoured to-day. Ireland has had a great and a brilliant share in this Empire. Some of its greatest soldiers, some of the most gallant warriors that have helped to fight for this Empire, some of its greatest Statesmen—we have the shining wisdom of Burke as well as the stern leadership of Wellington — contributed to build the Empire. All we ask is that the people of Ireland should not, in a moment of anger—let them, if they will, say legitimate anger—cast away an inheritance just as much theirs as ours, but that they should join in the Empire they have helped to build and to adorn.

Sir E. CARSON: I entirely appreciate the tone in which this Debate has been carried on up to the present, and I cannot but think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), in the touching speech which he made to the House, brought us all back to a sense of the realities of the clay which we are celebrating, and of the touching function which took place this morning. As far as I am concerned, I shall try to follow the example of the right hon. Gentleman [An HON. MEMBER: "I hope you will!"]—you are not doing it now—and also of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, whom I thank from the bottom of my heart for his closing words as regards the part that my country has played in the War, and the part she has played in the building up of the Empire, and if I and those who are with me and support me from Ireland have put up for many years a persistent and consistent fight to maintain our position in the United Kingdom and in the British Empire, have we not some justification for that course in the compliment that has been paid to what we have done to help the Empire in the past? My right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Asquith) said we are not enthusiastic about this Bill. How could we, with the feelings we have, be enthusiastic about any Bill which
interfered with our position as citizens of the United Kingdom? The right hon. Gentleman speaks as if this was the Bill that we disliked most, and when he twits us with not liking this Bill, is he at the same time prepared to offer us anything better? It is no use saying to us "You are not enthusiastic about this Bill," when he knows perfectly well that what he foreshadows would be utterly detestable to us, but after all, is it not natural that we should not have this enthusiasm? I at all events represent a constituency which is a child and product of the Union, which has grown up under the Union, flourished under the Union, which has progressed as well as any city in the whole of the. United Kingdom, which has, during the recent War, in its contribution to war work, been surpassed by no city in the United Kingdom.

Mr. DEVLIN: Especially my constituency.

Sir E. CARSON: This is not a party matter. In the building of your ships, in the making of your aeroplane cloth, in the manufacture of aeroplanes, and of everything that was necessary for war, our men there, not for the mere advantage of wages, but from the patriotism which they have always professed and always practised, lent themselves to the carrying out of the necessary work of the War in a manner which I think was an example to any part of the United Kingdom. Therefore, when we are asked to give up our position in the United Kingdom, do pray look at what we have achieved through our position in the United Kingdom.
But there is another question, which I hope you will allow me to refer to for a moment. Do you think that we feel nothing in the abandonment of our fellow Protestant countrymen in the South and West? That is the most tragic part of the whole of this Home Rule policy. That is the part most discreditable to this country, that the men in the South and West, who have ever been loyal to you, and who could always be relied upon by you, are the men you are preparing to abandon to the tender mercies of the Parliament which you are setting up over them in Ireland. Therefore, when we are chided with not being enthusiastic about the Bill, let me say that I see no reasons for
being enthusiastic towards any change that would bring about a diminution of our position as citizens of the United Kingdom. But that is not the whole question, even as regards our position.
We have to take facts as we find them, and we know perfectly well that the Act of 1914 is upon the Statute Book, and we know perfectly well that if there were a change of Government to-morrow, we would not gain our old position if my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Asquith) came into power or if the Labour party came into power. We know perfectly well the hostility of the Labour party to the Labour party in Ulster—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!" and "Withdraw!" and "Yes!"]—which they never cease to demonstrate, for reasons that I do not understand, and therefore, as practical men, we have to face the situation as it actually appears. Under these circumstances, as I announced on the Second Reading of this Bill, we could take no responsibility for a policy in which we did not believe, for a policy which we believe put us in an inferior position to what we have at present. And upon that account all we could undertake to say was this, that you must take the responsibility of this policy. But if the Government, a Government composed of all parties, tells us that it is essential, in the interests of the United Kingdom and of the Empire, to bring forward and put into force a scheme of this kind, then I promised that I would go and do my best in Ulster to reconcile them to this policy. That promise I have faithfully carried out, and may I say this? A good deal has been said about our preference to remain as we are as part of this country, even if Home Rule were granted to the South and West of Ireland. That was quite true, but I feel bound to state this, that as far as I understand the facts the Ulster people, having accepted the view of the Government that it was essential that they should be put under a Parliament of their own, for which they did not ask, have set themselves to get ready for that Parliament, and they have resolved and determined to work it in the best interests of their own country and of the Empire.
6.0 P.M.
I desire to say frankly to the House that I do see a great change in that direction in Ulster, and they are beginning to realise, now that they
themselves will have charge of their own affairs—us the Prime Minister says of all the affairs that go to the daily happiness and lives of our people—they do see, and are beginning more and more, from day to day to see, that if that Parliament is worked successfully and with goodwill, it may turn out more beneficial in their ordinary daily lives and in the local affairs of the country, and may, under the scheme of the Bill, be able at the same time to protect in the closest degree the connection with this Parliament and with the United Kingdom as a whole. Therefore, as far as we are concerned, I am now even better fitted than before to give the pledge that Ulster will do its best to perform the obligations put upon it under this Bill. I think that is of considerable importance. And let me say this. A great many hon. Members talk very loosely of self-determination, but I would ask them to consider this short proposition. Could there be any proposal nearer to self-determination than what is proposed in this Bill? I do not believe that even the House has realised it, let alone the country.
The Bill sets up a Parliament for the North of Ireland and a Parliament for the South of Ireland. It says these two Parliaments can select representatives to meet together on a council, and it says that that council can self-determine whether there shall be a Parliament for the whole of Ireland. Where will you get a better method of self-determination than that? Do you think it would be a better self-determination to say to the Irish people, "You go by a majority, and set up something that the people of the North of Ireland loathe and detest, and then, if they do not accept it, go and shoot them down?" Is that self-determination? No, Sir, this Bill sets up a procedure for a union and unity of the whole of Ireland, but it will be a real unity and not a sham unity. In my belief, no other scheme so statesmanlike, or so near to self-determination, which is so loosely defined, has ever yet been brought before this Parliament.
I am not going to dwell upon the merits or the demerits of the Bill. I have spoken a good deal during the Committee and Report stages, but I would like to enter a protest once more against the tactics of those who are opposing this Bill, for what have they done? They
say, "Your Bill is a bad one, and therefore we decline to come down and discuss it, with a view to making it a good one." If that practice in the future be carried out, whenever an Opposition or a minority dislike a Bill, it will put an end to the whole efficacy of Parliament, and I cannot but think that if hon. and right hon. Members opposite, instead of taking holidays while, this Bill was in Committee, or in the Report stage, had come down, and tried to impress upon it and upon Ireland their views of the proper method of carrying out a settlement, we might be a great deal nearer accord at the present moment than we are. To my mind, it is never the, right thing or the right policy in this House to refuse to discuss a Bill, and then to go to the country and abuse it.
That is nearly all I have to say, except one more observation, which is, perhaps, the most important, of all. I have indulged in this controversy for over 30 years. This is the third Home Rule Bill controversy I have been through. I know I shall never be through another. I hope with all my heart that this Bill will be a success. I hope with all my heart that in the long run it will lead to unity and peace in Ireland, that in the long run it will lead the hon. Gentleman opposite and myself to see Ireland one and undivided, loyal to this country and loyal to the Empire. But, Sir, if that result is even to be anticipated, if you are even to have a commencement on the road to that result, believe me you must give the Bill a fair and loyal trial. If hon. Gentlemen opposite proceed, the moment this Bill is passed, to try and thwart its working, or to encourage others, for political or other purposes in Ireland to try to thwart its working, you may readily succeed in thwarting its working, but you will be doing the greatest disservice to Ireland and to this country that can be conceived.
I hope all setions of this House may throw their whole weight behind the working of this Bill, and I say to those who for so many years have trusted me in the North of Ireland, whose Parliament s going, as I believe, to be set up—I tell them that they will have the greatest opportunity of showing the reality of their professions of loyalty towards your impire by displaying in their acts of government a tolerance, a fairness, and a justice towards all classes and all religions
of the community. They must forget faction and section, and they must resolve to govern the community over which they are placed in such a way as will show that they are the worthy citizens of this Empire that I believe them to be. Yes, and if they do, may not something else follow? We are told that the South and West will not function in the Parliament set up there. Perhaps even there Ulster may show an example. If Ulster does what I ask her to do, and what I hope and believe she will do, in setting up an example and a precedent of good government, fair government, honest government, and a government not for sections or factions, but for all, her example may be followed by the rest of Ireland, and in that way you may bring about a peace which you do not at the moment anticipate.

Mr. DEVLIN: I will venture to say, at the outset of the observations I am going to make to the House, that I think the right hon. Gentleman somewhat destroyed his case by overstating it. He was so profuse in pouring his blessings on this Bill that one would have imagined the Bill was his own. The right hon. Gentleman is not accustomed to a profusion of rhetorical description in praise of anything in which he does not believe, and, therefore, I confess that I cannot follow him and recognise that, in the acceptance of this Bill, he is making the remarkable sacrifice he says he is. This House of Commons is accustomed to have constantly ringing in its ears the word "Ulster." The right hon. Gentleman and his party do not represent Ulster. The six-county area that is to have a Parliament of its own is not Ulster. Not even four of the six counties are under the political direction of the right hon. Gentleman, and, therefore, I would say to the House of Commons, when it is considering the question of Ulster, to remember that the right hon. Gentleman, who gets everything he wants in this Bill, does not represent even the six counties in Ulster, because on a ballot he will only secure four counties. Because the right hon. Gentleman happens to hold political control over four counties, he is to come here and claim that he speaks for Ulster, and these four counties are to be regarded as Ulster.
I would like to approach the consideration of this matter in a spirit of goodwill. There is no one in this House so anxious
to see some ending to this long and bitter quarrel between two nations. I never could work myself up, even in the midst of the horrors which I think British rule has brought on Ireland, to a hatred of the British people. Ever since I entered public life, it has boon my one earnest hope and desire to see these two great democracies working in a spirit of friendship and comradeship for all the great causes for which men inspired by humanitarian ideas and high purposes should work together. Therefore, if I were convinced that the proposals contained in this Bill would really terminate this unhappy quarrel of centuries, if I could bring my mind to believe that even putting the most tolerant and generous interpretation upon these proposals, they could carry out the purpose which I think all of us have in mind in trying to bring the two peoples together, I would hesitate before I voted against the Bill, but I must frankly confess to the House that I do not think any proposal submitted by any government could be so foreign in its ultimate end to that purpose than this proposal.
I hear about two Irelands. There are two sections of political thought. The right hon. Gentleman represents one of them, and I think we may fairly claim to represent the other. The right hon. Gentleman is very fond of emphasising the fact that nobody can speak for Ireland, but I am still firmly convinced that if a great scheme of Dominion Home Rule wore introduced for Ireland, with what all sane men could regard as adequate safeguards for North East Ulster, we could say that such a scheme would undoubtedly satisfy the overwhelming sentiment of the people of Ireland. Let me point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, if he is not able to confer with delegated Irish opinion, if he is not in a position to-day to discuss proposals with Ireland, with Irish delegates appointed to speak for Ireland, that is not the fault of Ireland. There were delegates from Ireland for forty years in this House. There were 85 Members out of 100 who came here year after year. They were delegated speak for Ireland, and I have seen no passionate or intense anxiety to concede to them what they believed, and what Ireland believed, Ireland ought to have. I confess that was less than Ireland is prepared to accept to-day.
Under what conditions is this proposal made? I confess I cannot understand the
logic of your English statesmanship. I hear not only very prominent public men in this House, but itinerant orators of the party opposite, say what they have to say, and it would appear that the chief recommendation of this Bill is that nobody believes in it, that nobody supports it, nobody has asked for it, and nobody will stand by it except, the Government! I remember hearing a speech in this House by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in which he declared that "what we have to do as the statesmen, as guides of the destinies of the Empire, is to satisfy American opinion."

The PRIME MINISTER indicated dissent.

Mr. DEVLIN: The right hon. Gentleman made that speech, I think it was delivered on the occasion on which he announced his intention to introduce conscription in Ireland. If he will go back he will find I am not misrepresenting him. He said: "This is a Bill to satisfy American sentiment and give evidence to the American people who are not Irish that it is at any rate an attempted solution of the problem." But has it satisfied Labour? There is not a single Labour Member who has supported it. They have not only not supported it, but they have declared that the thing is not worth discussing. It has not satisfied Liberal opinion as expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Paisley. It has satisfied nobody. It has not satisfied Conservative opinion. What have we found in this House during the last three weeks, in this listless House, this House of empty Benches in connection with this, the greatest constitutional change for a century in the history of the relationship of the two nations? What have we seen? We have seen that Members in the House took no interest in the Bill because they thought the whole thing was artificial. The only people who really could carry on violent hostility against the Bill were Conservative Members of Parliament. When the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have declared they were ready to consider Amendments, those Conservative Gentlemen on the other side of the House, old time Unionists who in my recollection were some of the most bitter partisans against us in the old controversies—when these hon. Gentlemen proposed Amendments which would have made the Bill more acceptable not one of their
Amendments were accepted. On the contrary.
When, however, proposals were made in the form of Amendments by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson)—Amendments made for the purpose of weakening the Bill, the Government accepted every one. What was one of the Amendments proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman? He is the leader of the Ulster Labour party. One of the Amendments he proposed was that these Irish Parliaments, North and South, should not have power to levy a tax on capital. Another Amendment put forward and accepted by the spokesman of the Government was to give him power to take away proportional representation at the end of three years in order to rob the minority in the North of Ireland of whatever privileges they might have enjoyed in the operation of proportional representation. So much for what is thought of the Bill by labour, by America, by Independent Liberalism, by the House of Commons itself, and finally by the intelligent Conservative Members who, rising above the gangway—young men who have a larger vision than many of the hon. Gentlemen otherwise accomplished on these Benches—looked into the future and have attempted to improve this Bill in many ways. Yet not one of their suggested improvements has been accepted by the Government.
The real purpose of this Bill has really never been stated except by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir E. Carson). He declared that he was accepting this Bill because it meant the destruction of the Act of 1914. I do not believe—he has admitted it—that he would ever have listened to this proposal and, of course, the Government dare not introduce it if he had not approved of it—if it had not been for the fact that once this Bill was passed it might never be brought into operation. Here, let me say, that the Bill of 1914 has been assailed from many quarters, but my own belief is that if you had taken the financial Clauses of the Bill and made them satisfactory that it would have been a solution of the Irish problem. That is my own view. At all events, it is now understood, and I believe everyone is of that opinion, that the one real and genuine reason why this proposal has been brought forward was simply to clear
away from the Statute Book the Act of 1914—a betrayal as gross as the Act of Union. That Act was a sacred seal and sanction. It was to consecrate a higher and nobler comradeship of the two democracies. That seal has been broken and the sanctity of the arrangement has been destroyed; we get this Bill in its stead.
What has been the secret, the real cause of this Irish question not being solved during the last 30 years. The real reason was a religious reason. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Duncairn dwelt upon the wrongs of the minority. He made the whole of England ring with stories of the criminality of putting the minority in Ulster under the majority of the rest of Ireland. How has this Government proceeded to deal with this question of minorities? They have placed the Protestant minority in 26 counties in Ireland absolutely at the mercy of the Catholic majority. They take the Catholic minority, which is a homogeneous minority of 340,000 in a population of a little over 1,000,000, and place that minority at the mercy of the Protestant majority, and they plead in the most tender way, almost with tears in their voice, for the acceptance of this Bill, that it may end religious rancour. The Protestant minority scattered broadcast ever the 26 counties are being left without a single representative in the Parliament of the 26 counties, and my friends and myself, 340,000 Catholics in the six-county Parliament, covering a population of 1,200,000, are to be left permanently and enduringly at the mercy of the Protestant Parliament in the North of Ireland. If your object is to extirpate this religious rancour, I say to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, who grows so eloquent about matters when he is not defending indefensible outrages in Ireland—I say if you want to go the wrong way about the extirpation of these religious wranglings, jou could not have chosen a more effective method of doing it than by putting forward proposals of this character.
Just let the House realise further what this Bill proposes to do. It sets up a Council in Ireland. I listened with amazement to the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, and I have
listened to other Members of the House. I have heard this thing go ringing through this House, and through the United Kingdom. It has been said that Ireland is now being given the first chance it ever had, the first real chance of becoming a united nation. How? It is to become a united nation by the formation of a Council, a superior body, to be composed of twenty members from the Parliament of the twenty-six counties and twenty members from the Parliament of the six counties. That is to say, in this overriding constitutional body the people of the twenty-six counties are to have precisely the same representation as the people in the six counties. One Orangeman in the North of Ireland will be equal to six Nationalists in other parts of the country. It goes further. It states that until the twenty from Ulster agree with the twenty from Munster the Council can never operate. Fortunately for us, but unfortunately for them, their rhetoricians are not so skilful as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Duncairn. So one of their wild men comes forward—and, of course, it is the wild men that count—for when the right hon. and learned Gentleman passes the Bill and passes delightfully and joyfully from Belfast and back to England, when this Parliament is set up it is the wild men who will govern—and the hon. and gallant Member for South Antrim (Captain Craig) expresses the true mentality of the gentlemen who will sit in this six-county Parliament. He said—and I never witnessed him in so tragic and histrionic a mood—that never will there be unity in Ireland in the day of the oldest of us. It was a declaration beforehand of what we might expect. The Government gives him the power to say that Ireland will never be united, because the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I am sure, will be one of the chief Members of the Ulster Government, and I know something about the mentality of the gentlemen who sit opposite.
I sat in the Convention with them for over six months. I have great personal respect for them. I like them anywhere but when they have anything to do with the Government of Ulster. I sat with with them in Convention, and a more hopeless, unimaginative, rigid, uncompromising crowd I never did sit with in my life. I remember during our proceedings at the Conference that I witnessed a
thing which I have only seen repeated once in my life. I saw an Archbishop angry. The only other time that I have seen this was the other day in the House of Lords when Irish reprisals were discussed. It was an interesting experience. What did this Archbishop say? He said: "We have been here for nine months. We have been bringing forth all our capacity, our ingenuity, our patriotism, our common-sense, every quality that men should have"—and there were a great; many fine qualities, I can say that as one who played the least part in those deliberations—but if I wanted to prove to the British people the power, capacity, good temper, tolerant spirit, and genius for government which Ireland may manifest I would give them a picture of that Convention.
What, then, did the Archbishop say? "We have been," he said, "sitting here for months in this Convention trying to get the Ulster men to say something, to tel us what will satisfy them, what concessions they are prepared to make. What can we do? All of us are making sacrifices." It would take me too long to state the sacrifices which we Nationalists were prepared to make. The Southern Unionists made many sacrifices, but the Northern Unionists would agree to nothing simply because instead of listening to sane and wise counsels, instead of being moved by the true spirit of justice of the cause you have had this band of reactionaries able to determine your policy, and be the masters of your government in Ireland, and they say, "Saddled as we are in the places of authority, the real masters of the whole of Ireland, we will sit tight and remain where we are, and we will concede nothing." That is precisely their position, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson) will not expect me to recognise in him the Grand Conciliator who is making such sacrifices as those which he has unsuccessfully attempted to make out here to-day. This council can never come into operation until these gentlemen desire it. They were not dealing with Sinn Feiners at the Convention, and they would not unite with their own country-men.
I come to a question which is far more important than the powers under this Bill, and one which concerns me most deeply, namely, the treatment of the
Catholic and Nationalist population in those six counties. Is the House aware that during the last 30 years of the Home Rule controversy you could not get a couple of cases where a single Protestant has been persecuted for conscience sake in the South and West of Ireland. However deplorable these outrages in Ireland may be to-day they are not outrages because of religious persecution.

The PRIME MINISTER: There was an observation made by the hon. Member which gave me some concern. He said that the Council of Ireland could never come into existence unless the Members for Ulster desired it. That statement is not correct, and I think I ought to put it right. Not only will that Council come into existence, but by the terms of the Act there is certain work it has got to do.

Mr. DEVLIN: The right hon. Gentleman will not deny that it can carry out no Home Rule functions unless with the support of the Northern party.

The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friond is qviite wrong. Under present conditions, this Bill is not getting fair play. The Council of Ireland has very important functions to discharge under the Bill.

Mr. DEVLIN: We will clear that point up later on. I have read the interpretation Clause, but we need not delay the House with that matter. One of the constant statements made in this House by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn is in regard to the services which Belfast rendered to the Empire during the period of the War. He talked about what his constituency did. I am prepared to prove that in my constituency in Belfast, a purely Nationalist constituency, we contributed just as many volunteers to the Army as they did in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, although he and his party had received all the glories and advantages of the Empire, and we had received none of them.
That brings me to a matter to which I am bound to call the attention of this House. You are going to make in Ireland an immense change. In every proposal that has been made before by the Prime Minister or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), even when making concessions to Ulster, there never was any proposal
to set up another Parliament. This would be a permanent barrier against unity in Ireland. The right hon. Gentlemen may not agree with me, but they do not know Ireland as well as I do, and they do not know Ulster as well as I know it, and they do not know the spirit of hon. Members opposite as well as I know it. I say that this proposal will form a permanent barrier against unity. The right hon. Gentleman must have heard the speech of the hon. Member for South Antrim (Captain Craig), who declared that not in his day or generation would there ever be unity in Ireland.
This is a very remarkable change that is about to take place, and I am bound to say that with regard to the Ulster Parliament, at the very time when this Bill was being dissected and analysed by the people of these islands, these gentlemen were prepared to keep the Parliament of the six counties in their own hands, and without waiting for this Bill they proposed to wage a war on inoffensive Catholics, the most wanton and brutal and the most far-reaching in their consequences as any pogrom that was ever organised against a savage community. They burned the houses of every Catholic inhabitant in one town in Ireland. I do not believe there was a single political organisation in that town. I do not believe there was ever a public meeting of Nationalists in that town, and yet the houses of the Catholics there were burned down. When the new special constables were appointed to maintain the peace, 310 joined, and when 10 were arrested and brought to justice for looting those houses, the other 300 special constables resigned.
Take the town of Dromore, where every Catholic was driven out. I met a parish priest from that town, who is as strong a Constitutionalist as I am, and he told me that his functions had now ended, and that there was practically not a single Catholic left in the town. In my own native city 5,000 men who had never done a wrong to a single soul were driven out like hunted sheep, and they were told that if they dared to come back to their employment they would lose their lives. A great many of those people have no politics at all, and many of them who had politics were supporters of mine, and it is
all humbug to say that they were Sinn Feiners.
But even so, I am sure the Prime Minister would say that they are entitled, as long as they obey the law, to their freedom. I do not believe in the principles or the methods of Sinn Feiners, and I am not prepared to join them; but, even if they are Sinn Feiners, that is no reason why they should not be allowed to work and live in their own country. This was done by men who are represented by me, and I have given almost every moment of my life in the interests of these Protestant workers, and until the passion and defiler of political hatred was instilled into their souls, they pleaded with me to do everything I could, as the representative of the people, to secure reforms for them in this Parliament.

Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: They did it with the approval of a Member of the Government.

Mr. DEVLIN: Yes, the future Prime Minister of the Ulster Parliament. You would think that they alone had made sacrifices in the War. This Bill means that I am to live under a government in Ulster that will never make the slightest attempt to conciliate labour, because this new government will cut out every democratic desire. When they were asked the question, "Why is labour always against you?" they did not answer, but I will tell the House. During the 20 years I have been here I have never known them vote for a single democratic measure in my life. The very last notable vote they gave was when they marched into the Lobby against granting old-age pensions to the wounded soldiers of your commercial system. I see little sunshine for democracy in this new Parliament, but when I come to this House, short as I shall be in it, I am determined that the House of Commons shall understand what they are doing and under what thraldom they are prepared to put our people. Here is a letter which I have received:
I was three years and three months through the Great War. My son Joseph was through the War from the 10th August, 1914, to the time when the Armistice was signed. My second eldest son was 2½ years through the War, joining up at the age of 18 years and 6 days, and they have all suffered and are suffering from wounds or gas; and yet we are refused the right of earning our living in Belfast because we are Catholics. Therefore, as a disabled ex-service man who has been driven from my wife and family to look for a
living amongst strangers, I appeal to you to expose this business. I have been told that I was a Fenian, and deserved to be murdered, although I was fighting in Prance while my assailants were earning big wages in peacetime in Belfast.
What is it this man asks me to do? He asks me to write to somebody to get him a house in which he can live with his wife and children. He cannot afford, he says, to keep his family in Ireland and to live over in Durham himself. He cannot even get a house in this land which was to be made fit for heroes to live in. Let me give another case. At a meeting of the Belfast Board of Guardians the other day the Relieving Officer gave a long detailed statement about a woman who had applied for outdoor relief. She had been unable to work for a long time, being in failing health. She was 67 years of age. She had one son 48 years of age in receipt of 10s. weekly from a voluntary fund raised to endeavour to keep people from starving. He had been out of employment since July, having been expelled from the shipyard. The woman had another son aged 23, also out of employment for the same reason, but not yet in receipt of any grant from the voluntary fund. She had a daughter 32 years of age earning 25s. a week, another daughter earning 10s. weekly, and a third daughter an invalid. The family were all residing together and were practically starving. That was the report of the Relieving Officer.
Let me quote another case. A man, Richard Bowman, was charged with assaulting Daniel O'Neill on 23rd September in Belfast, and, at the close of the trial, the judge, who before his appointment was one of the corner-stones of the Unionist party in Ulster—no one will question that—said he had never known a worse case in his life. This judge, who is the Recorder of Belfast, a post to which he was appointed by the present Government on the recommendation of the right hon. Member for Duncairn, declared that no one would have imagined that in that loyal City of Belfast any man's hand would be raised against a man who had proved his loyalty in the War. The prosecutor in this case was in the War for four and a half years, and he fought for the benefit of the accused as well as of his country. He came back hoping to have a happy home, but was foully and brutally beaten. We have witnessed the horrified faces of
hon. Members when reference is made to outrages in the South of Ireland, yet this young man, because he happened to be born into a Catholic family instead of a Protestant family, had been thus brutally treated; and Judge Matheson said he would have thought that at least in Belfast men would have respected loyal men who had fought for their King and country. He could understand their finding fault with disloyal men, but the treatment of this man, because he happened to be a Catholic, was more than any sensible person could understand.
I am sorry to detain the House with these details, but I do it in order to emphasise the importance of this question so far as we are concerned. It may be said that this was only the conduct of a rabble. But after these things had gone on for some time a Minister of the Crown, a member of the Government, a gentleman who, I understand, is to be Prime Minister in the New Ulster Parliament, said, at the close of a long speech to Orangemen who had been organising a demonstration, "Do I approve of the action you have taken in the past?" He answered the question himself by adding "I say, yes." This was said by Sir James Craig, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty. We have therefore not only these scandalous demonstrations of wanton and savage bigotry on the part of the rank and file, but we have also the Leader of the party, a member of the Government, at the commencement of the twentieth century going down to Ulster to give his blessing to one of the most outrageous and inhuman demonstrations of ruffianism that the world has ever known. May I further call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to this paragraph in the same speech?
The life and property of any man who is true to the colours would be safe under the new Ulster Parliament.
We may take it, I suppose, that our lives, our property, and all that we stand for will be safe under this Ulster Parliament if we cling to the Orange flag. Under that flag I will not stand. I will follow no such colours. I tell the right hon. Gentleman that I know beforehand what is going to be done with us, and therefore it is well we should make our preparations for that long fight which, I suppose, we will have to wage in order to be allowed
even to live. The right hon. Gentleman has not put a single Clause into his Bill to safeguard the interests of our people. This is not a scattered minority. Will the House believe we are a hundred thousand Catholics in a population of four hundred thousand? It is a story of weeping women, hungry children, hunted men, homeless in England, houseless in Ireland. If this is what we get when they have not their Parliament, what may we expect when they have that weapon, with wealth and power strongly entrenched? What will we get when they are armed with Britain's rifles, when they are clothed with the authority of government, when they have east round them the Imperial garb, what mercy, what pity, much less justice or liberty, will be conceded to us then? That is what I have to say about the Ulster Parliament. I will not go further into the Bill.
I would rejoice to enter into the spirit of the higher ideals which have been expressed in some quarters in this Debate. The right hon. Gentleman tells us how completely satisfied he is the Parliament in Ulster would work. But he has never repudiated these transactions. He has given us no guarantee that things will not be worse for us instead of better. While this saturnalia of persecution goes on, while men and women are denied the right to live and to do the things which constitute the inspiring purpose of genuine liberty, what can we expect? The right hon. Gentleman has plenty of courage. He could have said to the shipyard owners in Belfast, "Let these men go back to their work, or no further contracts will be given to you." He could have brought pressure to bear upon them. The Government have the power to do that. I tell the right hon. Gentleman that he and his colleagues are only inflaming passions when they recite fhe deplorable and indefensible story of policemen and soldiers who have been killed. After all they have been killed in what is a sort of war. These things to which I have been referring are not war. They are acts of gross cruelty, of refined cruelty It is persecution so wicked that one would imagine that any man responsible for it, and defending it, would be unworthy not only of a seat in the Government but of a seat in this House.
Before this Bill passes through its final stages I would advise the right hon. Gentleman to remember there are 350,000 Ulstermen. They may be working men. They have given their lives, their treasure, their skill and their energy to the building up of Belfast just as much as the capitalistic gentlemen who are engineering, organising and inspiring these political manifestations in the form I have described. Therefore when we come to finally deal with this Bill I want to know where we stand in Ulster. No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that we have been prepared to meet him in a reasonable way. We will not deny that. In any relationship he has had with us in the past we have shown that we are prepared to do anything that we can to put an end to all this mischief in the country which is causing so much anxiety, anger and irritation, and which has become not only an international matter but a matter of world interest. It is all very well to talk of this as a domestic question. Remember the atrocities committed upon the Armenians by the Turks. Remember the demonstration they called forth. The last time I ever heard Mr. Gladstone was in the City of Liverpool. I had travelled over from Belfast in order to hear him, and in Hengler's Circus I saw that old man, the symbol of England's humanity, standing there in his eighty-fifth year—but a few years before his death—and as a result of that golden eloquence of his, that something more than golden eloquence, that outburst of the human heart in favour of freedom, right, and justice, I saw that mighty audience thrilled with passionate resentment against the atrocities inflicted by the Turks upon the Armenians. Was there ever anything worse than that? Was there ever anything worse than what is occurring over in Ireland to-day? We want our country restored to its normal Christian feeling. We want our country re-established as a nation. Apart from political crime it is the most crimeless country in the world. We want our people saddled with a sense of responsibility such as springs not from a mere simulacrum of freedom, such as is suggested by this Bill, but from real genuine freedom. We want the minority in Ulster so protected and defended as will make such horrors impossible in the future.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. JELLETT: Before this Debate is over an opportunity should be given to one who intends to deal, in a very short speech, with this great question from the point of view of the policy hitherto adopted and pursued by what is now the largest party in this House. Certainly the position in which we find ourselves to-day is anomalous in the extreme. A portion of Ireland, which has hitherto been most strenuous in its opposition to Home Rule, is apparently going to be the first to accept it, and that portion of Ireland which has hitherto been supposed to be most strenuous in its demand for Home Rule will have nothing whatever to do with it. The answer to that rather peculiar position is easy and simple enough to give. Ulster accepts this measure in order to avoid the future danger of being governed by rebels. The South of Ireland rejects the Bill because they are rebels. There is another anomaly in connection with this matter which is not so very easily dealt with. The once great Unionist party, which for the last 30 years has successfully opposed this policy as being ruinous to Ireland and a menace to the security of the United Kingdom and of the Empire, is deserted by its leaders and, after waiting for the fulfilment of all its predictions, has abandoned them. At the moment when this policy is more dangerous and fatal than ever it was in the past, it is proceeding to give up the course it has hitherto pursued and adopting Home Rule for Ireland. Many of those who have advocated Home Rule in the past have talked of Ireland as being an oppressed nation, struggling for freedom, and ground down by a brutal tyranny. I have no hesitation in saying that all that sort of talk is rank hypocrisy. What is the position of Ireland? It is over-represented in the Imperial Parliament with one-and-a-half times the power in this Parliament compared with any other party in the United Kingdom in proportion to the population. Take another test. Look back to the position of Ireland during the War. England, Scotland, and Wales submitted loyally, and without complaint, to many restrictions connected with food and other matters. Nothing of the kind in Ireland. Orders in Council and Regulations were made necessarily restricting different matters of that kind here, and they always wound up in the same language,
"this shall not apply to Ireland." Take conscription. Every part of the United Kingdom was subjected to conscription except Ireland.
Let me take a wider view. I say without fear of contradiction that Ireland has been the spoilt child of Imperial legislation in the past. For the last 40 years Statute after Statute has been passed to ameliorate the condition of Ireland, and, above all, to ameliorate the the conditions of the agricultural class in Ireland, which, as I need hardly remind the House, is by far the largest in the community. The Irish farmer has been given a position which is the envy of all the agriculturists in other parts of the Kingdom. The position of the labourer has been improved beyond recognition, Old-age pensions have been established, and Ireland has had all through the benefit of Imperial credit, with the result that public works have been carried out under the Union which would never have been done under any system of self-government in Ireland.
Losing all that, what are we to get? One thing connected with the Home Rule question is that no one has ever attempted to point out the benefits that are going to accrue to Ireland under it. It is easy enough to point out what she has lost, but what she would gain is a thing we have never been told. I listened with intense interest to the speech of the Prime Minister. It was one of the strongest arguments against Home Rule which I have ever heard. We all know, in spite of observations which I have heard to-night to the effect that this is a golden opportunity for settling the Irish question, that there never was a Home Rule Bill more universally repudiated by every section of opinion in Ireland than this. There is not a single section of opinion in Ireland—North. South, East or West—that has a good word to say for it, and the only reason why Ulster is having anything to do with it is to save herself from worse. We were told by the Prime Minister this evening that use had been made of the ports and creeks in the South and West of Ireland during the War. We are promised further revelations during the next few days. We know what happened in 1916 and in 1918, and we know also that at the present moment those who are the dominant party in Ireland are in secret alliance with and are being financially supported by
Russian Bolsheviks. We also know that there is an international conspiracy, worked from Russia, aided by Germany, for the establishment of an independent Ireland and thus to bring about the destruction of the British Empire.
It is easy enough to talk about Home Rule in Ireland, but I would ask the House to remember that the question is very much larger than that. It involves the whole future of this Kingdom and of this Empire. It is not too much to say that if any Bill had been in operation, either on the lines of the present Measure or the Act of 1914, while the War was in progress, the result might and in all probability would have been something very different. What is the policy of His Majesty's Government? The Government—and in this they deserve and are entitled to expect and obtain the support of all loyal men in this House—are determined to put down crime by every means at their disposal. In that I hope and believe they will have the unanimous support of the House. If they stopped there, nothing more would be said, but in the very same breath they introduce legislation to hand over the whole future of Ireland to the very forces which they are now combating. There are two courses to them to pursue in the presence of the existing revolution. They can surrender to it or they can put it down. His Majesty's Government are taking both courses. The surrender is only postponed. They crush the revolution beneath the surface, and when they have done that they hand over to the revolutionaries the whole future of Ireland. If Home Rule were established in Ireland to-morrow, and if the powers conferred by this Bill were handed over to what is now the dominant and most powerful party in Ireland, the only result would be that they would use those powers for the purpose of attaining their ultimate goal, which is absolute independence and separation. In this matter there is only one issue; there never was any other. The issue is the same as it has been from the very beginning. It is union or total separation, and as the right hon. and learned Member for Duncairn has said, many a time, there is no half-way house between the two. I ask His Majesty's Government and tins House to face the issue, and to face it now. There is only one answer; the Union, firmly, justly, impartially and generously administered is, as has been shown by experience,
the one and only policy to preserve Ireland from anarchy and ruin and the Empire from destruction.

Mr. HARBISON: —[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"]—I am not going to stand long between those hon. Members who are crying "Divide!" and the Division, but I wish to impress upon this House that in every word I am going to say I am sincere, and that I believe in what I am about to remark. I represent a county which is to be included in this arbitrary partition of my native land. Since we got freedom, under the Franchise Act of 1885, that county has, without a shadow or sign of hesitation during those 36 years, made its legitimate demand constitutionally and by overwhelming majorities for freedom in a Parliament for all Ireland. I have represented the party with which I have acted in that county for the last 35 years. I have given all my life's poor effort to fight legitimately, and according to constitutional means, for the right to the majority of the people to rule in their native land. The provisions of this Bill are an insult, to the Irish nation. The Prime Minister sometime ago declared that there were two nations in Ireland. I answered the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion by saying that that was not a true statement, and I brought to witness here the Act of Parliament passed by this House which declared—it is still on the Statute Book—that Ireland was then, it was in 1783, a nation "now and forever." That-still stands upon the Statute Book of this Realm, and the Bill that is now being proposed is a denial of the declaration made in that Statute. We, in the constituency that I represent, have always acted up to the spirit of that Statute, and we have constitutionally given our judgment in verification of it in General Election after General Election. A neighbouring constituency in the county of Fermanagh, which was represented at one time by the brother of our late leader, Mr. Redmond, has always and consistently declared for a Parliament for all Ireland. The city of Derry has made a like declaration time after time.
If this is an honest Bill, and if we assume for the sake of argument that it is true that there are two nations, the one nation is supposed to be represented by Ulster, and the other by the rest of Ireland I ask the Prime
Minister, Why is not the whole of Ulster included in this Bill? If he is sincere in his declaration that Ulster represents one nation, and the rest of Ireland another, there are three counties cut out of Ulster and cast to the wolves of Southern Ireland. Why is that? Is that an honest thing to do? Is it an honourable thing to do? Is it an honourable thing for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn to cast out his brother Unionists to the wolves, or the rebels, or the "murderers," as they call them, of the South and West of Ireland? Is not it all the purest hypocrisy to say that there are two nations in Ireland. If there are two nations in Ireland, the Government is dissecting the Ulster nation as well as dissecting the whole of Ireland. Take the local representation of these nine counties. At the present moment we, the Nationalists of Ulster, hold five out of the nine County Councils of Ulster. Tyrone is a Nationalist County Council; so is Fermanagh, and so are Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal. Tyrone and Fermanagh have been won against a system of shameless jerrymandering. We won them in spite of that jerrymandering. We have fought for 35 years; and now, by this Bill, we are to be cut off from the rest of Ireland and thrown into eternal slavery by another system of jerrymandering. In this proposed Parliament in Belfast we, who represent nearly half a million of the population, will not have more than eight or nine seats out of 50 or 52.

Mr. MOLES: You will have 20.

Mr. HARBISON: I know the register of Ulster as well as any living man. I have served for 35 years in connection with that register, and I know how we will stand when the electoral units are divided under this scheme. I want peace, but this is not peace. This is not a Bill for the better government of Ireland. I believe that the people in the county that I represent would be legally justified in using every form of resistance in their power to prevent this Act, if it ever becomes an Act, from coming into operation. It is a sentence of death, in my opinion, upon us as a unit in that Parliament. Our liberties are gone; and if the younger men of Ireland become indignant, and take courses that no sane man could defend, who will be responsible? The responsibility will be upon the men who
have produced this Bill at the dictates of a narrow-minded set of reactionaries in the North-East corner of Ulster. It is a very small corner of Ulster; I have the map of it here. A set of reactionaries in that corner will have us under their heel for all time. I know the feeling of the men whom I represent, and I assure you, on this Armistice night, when all should be peace, that you are going to create, not peace, but eternal dissatisfaction, division, and, I am afraid, destruction. I think it my duty to say that here to night, because I believe that, if this Bill takes its course, things will happen that, as the old President of the late Boer Republic said, will stagger civilisation. I pray to God that such things may not happen. I am not a man for violent measures, but the people whom I represent demand justice, and they are not getting it under this Bill. I do not take the responsibility of the consequences that follow from that; I place it on the shoulders of the men who are rushing this Bill through in spite of the Irish people.
It is the case of the Act of Union over again. You all know that the Act of Union was passed over the heads of the people of Ireland. The Parliament of Ireland, some six or seven years before that Act was passed, had granted the franchise to the Catholics of Ireland. What did the Government of that day do? Without allowing the people to have an election, they passed that Act over their heads, and that Act has been the cause of all our troubles. To-day they are doing likewise. I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn, if he has the courage of his convictions, and if he says he represents the men in the six counties—before this Bill comes into operation, I challenge him to allow each of those six counties and the two cities to give a vote on this Bill. I am prepared to abide by the result of that vote. He will find that he haw not six counties—not four, in my opinion—in support of it. There are only two counties and one city in that neighbourhood who will support it. Even in the City of Belfast there is a strong Unionist element that does not want this Bill. The merchants of Belfaso to-day, to my knowledge, are crying for peace and for a settlement of this question. They know that, if this Bill is proceeded with, it will not be a settlement that will bring them peace, so that
they may go on with their vocations and prosper, as we are all proud to see them prosper. If it goes on, it will economically ruin the City of Belfast, and the rest of Ireland as well. This Bill will bring, not peace, but a sword. I ask the Government, even at the eleventh hour, to settle the matter by putting it to a vote of the people. We are always prepared, and always have been prepared,

to abide by the vote of the people as to whether in those six counties they wish to come in under this Bill or to remain out. That is the only offer that I can make, and I believe that it is the only offer that will save us from another black page of Irish history.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 183; Noes, 52.

Division No. 361.]
AYES.
[7.24 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Greer, Harry
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Amery, Lieut-Col. Leopold C. M. S.
Greig, Colonel James William
Purchase, H. G.


Armitage, Robert
Guest, Major O. (Leic, Loughboro')
Rankin, Captain James S.


Atkey, A. R.
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Haslam, Lewis
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Remnant, Sir James


Barnston, Major Harry
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Renwick, George


Barrand, A. R.
Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)
Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Gulidford)
Roberts. Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.
Rodger, A. K.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hurd, Percy A.
Rogers, Sir Hallewell


Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart.(Gr'nw'h)
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Bethell, Sir John Henry
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Betterton, Henry B.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Jesson, C.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Johnstone, Joseph
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Seager, Sir William


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Seddon, J. A.


Brassey, Major H. L. C.
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Breese, Major Charles E.
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Bridgeman, William Clive
Kidd, James
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Brown, Captain D. C.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Simm, M. T.


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Smith, Harold (Warrington)


Butcher, Sir John George
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Carew, Charles Robert S.
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Casey, T. W.
Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.
Sugden, W. H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A.(Birm.,W.)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Sutherland, Sir William


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Lorden, John William
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Taylor, J.


Coates, Major Sir Edward F.
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Courthope, Major George L.
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Tryon, Major George Clement


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Vickers, Douglas


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Macquisten, F. A.
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Edge, Captain William
Mason, Robert
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Edwards, Allen C. (East Ham, S.)
Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Morrison, Hugh
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Fell, Sir Arthur
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Forestier-Walker, L.
Murchison, C. K.
Wise, Frederick


Forrest, Walter
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.
Neal, Arthur
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Gilbert, James Daniel
Parker, James
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Pearce, Sir William
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Glyn, Major Ralph
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Younger, Sir George


Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.
Percy, Charles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Perkins, Walter Frank
Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest.


Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar
Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.



Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Devlin, Joseph


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Dockrell, Sir Maurice


Donnelly, P.
Irving, Dan
Redmond, Captain William Archer


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Jellett, William Morgan
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Finney, Samuel
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Kenyon, Barnet
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Galbraith, Samuel
Lawson, John J.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Glanville, Harold James
Lunn, William
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Gould, James C.
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(Midlothian)
Waterson, A. E.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Mills, John Edmund
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Wintringham, T.


Harbison, Thomas James S.
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Hartshorn, Vernon
Myers, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hayday, Arthur
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Mr. Tyson Wilson and Mr. Neil


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
O'Connor, Thomas P.
Maclean.


Hogge, James Myles
O'Grady, Captain James



Holmes, J. Stanley
Raffan, Peter Wilson



Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — MINISTERS' SALARIES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider whether the salaries of any of the Ministers are relatively inadequate and should be increased; and, if so, to what extent.—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Sir F. BANBURY: I strongly object to a committee being set up to consider whether Ministers' salaries should be fixed. If a committee was to be set up to see whether we could save any money, either by doing away with some of the superfluous Ministries or by decreasing some of the salaries and so make a commencement of national economy, I should be in favour of it. If the House agrees to this Motion in the terms in which it is submitted the Committee is only authorised to see whether the salaries of Ministers should be increased. First of all there are any number of hon. Members who would be only too glad to take positions now occupied by various Ministers at the salaries which those various Ministers are receiving. In fact, I am not sure, if the positions were put up to be aplied for, that there would not be a considerable number who would be very glad to take them at considerably less salary, and therefore the contention that it is necessary to increase salaries or to set up this Committee to see whether the salaries should not be increased on the ground that it is impossible to get Ministers to conduct the business at the present salary falls to the ground. Then there is the very important question of national economy. It is absolutely necessary, to my mind, that if we are not going to become a bankrupt country we have got to economise. It is absolutely essential. I have said this over and over again in the last three or four years. I have considerable financial experience
in the City, and I am as certain as I could be certain of anything—as certain as that I am alive at present—that unless we mend our ways we shall certainly within a few years become a bankrupt country. It is no use denying the fact. It is evident to everyone who has had any financial experience. What is it the Government are going to do? We have asked them over and over again to endeavour to reduce expenditure. Now they are asking us to set up a Committee to increase their own salaries. That will be followed by a Committee to increase the salaries of Members, and so the thing will go on until there will be no more money to go round and the country will become bankrupt. I earnestly hope the Leader of the House will recognise that this is not the time to propose an increase in the salaries of Ministers, and that he will consent to defer the Betting up of this Committee.

Colonel GRETTON: I also object to this Committee being set up at this present time. No doubt it is contemplated that the sums of money involved will not be very large, but on the other hand, is it necessary to increase the salaries in any degree? No ease has been made out that it is not possible to find capable Ministers to accept the salaries which have hitherto been voted by Parliament. My right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbnry), whose views on the need of economy are well known, has drawn attention to the general situation. It is undoubtedly unfortunate that at a time when Ministers are urging everyone in the country to be economical they should set up a committee to increase some of their own salaries. It may be said the Committee has only got to inquire, but the terms of reference are unusually mandatory because they are debarred from inquiring whether any of the salaries might be adjusted and whether there might be a
grading of salaries so that the total sum might not be increased, and the only thing which the Committee may consider is whether the salaries are relatively inadequate and whether any of them should be increased. That appears to me to be a very unfortunate wording of the terms of reference. At present this tendency among Ministers, and unfortunately among Members of the House, to spend more on themselves is extraordinarily unfortunate. What position could Ministers possibly take up towards an increase of Members' salaries if they take steps to increase their own salaries? I do not dwell on the fact that people outside the House will consider that some Ministers are already overpaid. That no doubt will be said freely in certain organs of the Press and will receive a large measure of assent in various quarters outside. This is a most dangerous subject to deal with at present and the action of the Government is tactless. I therefore hope they will not proceed in setting up the Committee, but will defer further consideration of the subject to some future occasion.

Lord HUGH CECIL: I beg to move, to leave out the words, "whether the salaries of any of the Ministers are relatively inadequate and should be increased, and, if so, to what extent," and to insert thereof the words, "what the remuneration of Ministers should be."
I suggest that the terms of reference are rather offensive to a House of Commons that thinks it is in favour of economy. The Committee is merely instructed to inquire whether salaries should be increased. At present it is rather unnecessarily insulting the sentiment in favour of economy which the House has always expressed but very seldom acted upon.

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House) made an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.

Lord H. CECIL: I mean the same Ministers whose salaries my right hon. Friend proposes to increase.

Mr. BONAR LAW made an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.

Lord H. CECIL: So it is now. "Whether the salaries of any of the
Ministers are relatively inadequate and should be increased." They can consider any number of Ministers. It may be relatively to the pay of a private soldier or anything else. I do not think that makes the slightest difference. There is this additional point, that my own conviction has been for a great many years that the salaries of Ministers ought to be smaller, but they ought to have a pension, and I think the case for that is very strong indeed now that it is increasingly likely that men with very small private means may hold office, and they may be put in a very difficult, and I should have thought a false position. If they resign their office, which it may be their duty to do because of disagreement with their colleagues, they drop at once from a substantial income to no income at all. It would be better to pay them a considerably smaller salary, and assure them a moderate proportion of the salary as a perpetual pension. In that case you might make for the independence of Ministers, which is one of the most important constitutional safeguards we have.

Mr. HOGGE: I beg to second the Amendment. I had intended to move another. The reason I support the Amendment is not that I am afraid of investigating this question because somebody outside may criticise me for dealing with it. The question of Ministers' salaries ought to be dealt with. The original reason for the appointment of the Select Committee was the inadequate remuneration paid to the Secretary for Scotland. It would not be in order for me to deal with the case of the Secretary for Scotland, as compared with other officers, but there is no doubt that the Secretary for Scotland is inadequately remunerated. The difficulty that I should find if I were a Member of the Select Committee, with this reference, would be the time we should take, and the difficulty we should have in discovering what is meant by the words "relatively inadequate." Suppose we were presented with this problem, that we were to determine whether the salary paid to the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Health for Scotland, which is £1,200 a year, was relatively inadequate compared with the salary paid to the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, which is £1,500 a year. I presume that we should take evidence as to the amount of work done by both these Ministers and the
importances of their work to the State. That would require a great deal of investigation.
There are four categories of Ministers. There is what we generally term the Ministers of Cabinet rank, who receive a salary of £5,000. There is another group of Ministers at the heads of different Departments, such as the Education Department, whose salaries range from £2,000 to £2,500. Then there is a third category of Under-Secretaries, whose salaries are £1,500, whereas the salaries of Parliamentary Secretaries, who do the same work as the Undersecretaries, range inside of £1,200. I think the Leader of the House might agree to alter the reference, because it does not follow that the recommendations of the Committee need be adopted. It may quite easily be that with the altered reference a different scheme could be submitted. I have a great deal of sympathy with the Noble Lord in regard to the question of pensions. The question of pensions ought to be considered. The position of the Prime Minister ought to be more adequately protected. When you have, as we have in this country, public men serving the State for years, and giving up the possibility of making private incomes as a result of their service, it is derogatory to the dignity of this House that the Prime Minister, whoever he may be in the future, should be left to the exigencies of fortune. That is wrong, and I strongly hold that any public man who reaches the position of Prime Minister ought to be protected when, owing to the exigencies of party, he becomes an ex-Prime Minister. Therefore, I am not sure that the Leader of the House might not get a great deal of material which would be very useful on this subject, which has never been gone into. I could conceive myself on this Committee making recommendations which would result in economy. There are three posts in the Ministry now in which the Ministers have no departmental work to talk about. The Lord Privy Seal is a sinecure, so far as departmental work is concerned. It is a good thing that we have a post of this kind to which the Leader of the House can be attached, in order to free him from departmental work. There is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and there is another sinecure, the Lord President of the Council. What I complain about is that in addition to these posts, which are sinecures, and in which the
Ministers do no departmental work, the Government have now appointed another Minister, without Portfolio, at a salary of £5,000. I would make these sinecure offices do some work, always excepting the Leader of the House. I say that, not because it is my right hon. Friend (Mr. Bonar Law) who is the Leader of the House, but because that position is held by the Leader of the House, and the Leader of the House ought not to be worried with departmental work. The other posts ought to carry departmental work. I can quite easily conceive that, with an alteration in the terms of reference, you might get a wealth of material and a number of conclusions that would place these positions on a far better basis than at the present time.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have no objection whatever to accepting the reference in this form if there is a general desire for it. As I explained to my Noble Friend, the reason why we put the reference in this form is very obvious. There are certain Ministers who are receiving salaries approaching that of the ordinary salaries of Cabinet Ministers, £5000. Representations are being made that, in view of the cost of living, these salaries should be increased. I was anxious that the reference should make it plain that we did not desire that question to be raised, and that it was only to relate to these smaller salaries. In regard to the general question, perhaps the best time to discuss it is when this Committee has reported. I would like to put before the House the light in which this question appears to me. It seems to me rather strange that the two hon. Members who have opposed the appointment of the Committee are business men. My right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) is chairman of one of the big railways. If his idea of economy is that, because the railways are in a bad financial position, and that they find it difficult to get along, the best way to economise is to pay salaries which will not attract the best men, then I am rather sorry for his shareholders.

Sir F. BANBURY: I said that we could get as good men as Ministers for the same salaries that you are now paying, or even less.

Mr. BONAR LAW: As regards Ministers, we all agree about that, at different times. I should be greatly surprised if my right hon. Friend has not found it
necessary largely to increase the salaries of the head men, or some of them, in the railways. I am sure of this, that one form of spending money which pays best in all businesses is to make sure that you pay a salary which will secure the best men that are available. I admit that, with regard to Ministers, salary is not the chief inducement. I am not speaking personally in any sense at all, but I could name half a dozen of my colleagues who, without any doubt, could make double or treble the Balary they get as Ministers.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Yet they want to be Ministers.

Mr. BONAR LAW: Quite apart from any sense of duty, there are advantages in being Ministers, from the standpoint of power and position, and these ought to be taken into account. Consider the matter from another point of view. While that is all true, I am certain that nothing could be worse for the business of the State than that Ministers in responsible positions should have a salary which makes it necessary constantly to worry about their expenditure, and sometimes find it necessary to increase their income in other directions. I agree, with what was said by my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) about the Secretary for Scotland. That is a very good illustration. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Munro) was formerly Lord Advocate at a salary of £5,000, and he accepted the Office of Secretary for Scotland, the salary of which is only £2,000, at the very earnest request of the Prmie Minister, backed by myself. For that Office, at least, it is quite absurd that the salary should be so small. I will give the House another illustration. There is one of the Ministers, with a small salary, who was actually selected by the Prime Minister, after consultation with me, for one of the big offices, at a salary of £5,000. The Prime Minister was going to offer it to him the very next day. Then we began to think, and came to the conclusion that this Minister was so valuable in the office he held that it would really be a loss to the State to change him. That is very unfair. I am quite sure the House will pay attention to the recommendations made by the Committee. We have referred this matter to a Committee to try to avoid something of the prejudice which is expressed outside that we are arranging our own salaries. That is not true, because the men who control the
Cabinet—and this is true of every Cabinet—are not affected by this. It is because we really believe it to be in the public interest. In regard to the sinecure officers referred to, and I am grateful for what my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) said about me. I have a much easier time now than when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer and Leader of the House, but if I do not wholly earn my salary it is not because I have not plenty to do.

Mr. HOGGE: You earn your salary right enough.

Mr. BONAR LAW: Take another sinecure office. The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Balfour) has been Prime Minister, and he has had an immense amount of experience. His value to the Government, apart from any stress of work, is extraordinarily great. In addition, he is now fulfilling constantly duties on Committees, and things of that kind, and although he would deprecate the idea that he should got more than the ordinary salary of Lord President of the Council, I am sure that he is doing work as good and as arduous as that which is being done by many Ministers in the fully paid offices. The idea of economy which takes the form that any expenditure of money is waste is one of the most stupid things one could imagine. The idea that all expenditure means waste is absurd. Let everything be examined on its merits.

Sir F. BANBURY: As the right hon. Gentleman has referred to the railways, may I inform him that so far as I know, and I believe I am correct, no single Chairman of a railway has had his fees increased or has asked for any increase, and no single director has had an increase or asked for an increase.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I should have been surprised if they had, but that is not the point. It is the general managers and engineers, the men who are actually doing the work, to whom I referred. My right hon. Friend knows that it was not of chairmen and directors of railways that I was thinking when I made those observations.

Commander BELLAIRS: There is one other aspect of this matter, on the question of appearances. There never was a time when the country more strongly demanded economy. We have been proud
of the fact that Ministers' salaries have not been increased, and now Ministers come forward, without a single Member of this House having suggested it, and propose that a Committee should be appointed to investigate this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] This Committee is the twelfth Order on the Paper. We do not usually expect to deal with the twelfth Order, and a great many hon. Members have gone away, not thinking that this would be reached. This is the wrong time for raising this question, because it will be considered at a time when the cost of living is very high, and we are quite certain that once those salaries are increased they will never be reduced. I never heard yet of a Ministerial salary being reduced. As to the composition of the Committee, nearly all its fifteen members are budding Ministers of the future. A large number of the salaries which are to be considered are the salaries of the Members of the House of Lords, and yet this is a purely House of Commons Committee. Personally, I should be much more satisfied if no Committee were set up at this moment. It would make a bad impression in the country at a time when the whole country is asking for economy.

Mr. MacVEAGH: I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that the two Front Benches are probably agreed on this little transaction. My experience in this House, which is now nearly as long as that of the Lord Privy Seal, has taught me to be very suspicious about any deal that the two Front Benches are prepared to work. It is something proposed by the "ins" which is supported by the "outs" because they know it will suit them when they get in. That is the real explanation of this benevolent friendliness, and these smiling faces which I see on the Front Opposition Bench are an indication of what they hope for when another General Election takes place, I rose specially to congratulate the Lord Privy Seal on the frankness with which he explained the character of the present Government. It is because they do not pay enough money to get decent men in the Government that they have the Government as bad as it is. I should like to know whether Ministers are going to confine themselves to the duties for which they are to be paid those salaries? I agree with the Lord Privy Seal that the Ministers ought to be
beyond any temptation to indulge in flutters on the Stock Exchange. No Minister, from the Prime Minister down, ought to be tempted to do so or to make money other than by means of his office. But every Sunday when I take up a newspaper I find Cabinet Ministers cutting in on the work of journalists, who have to earn their living as journalists, contributing articles for which they obtain enormous rewards. I believe that it is not an unusual thing for certain members of the Government to get a hundred guineas—[An HON. MEMBER: "TWO hundred guineas!"]—for an article in a Sunday morning paper. The articles are no good. It is not the articles that the newspaper proprietors pay for. It is the name at the top of the articles. The articles are not worth anything. One of the poorest contributions I have seen from the Ministerial Bench came the other day from the hon. and gallant Gentleman who is sitting beside the right hon. Gentleman.

Captain GUEST (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): It was not paid for.

Mr. MacVEAGH: That was because it was so bad that nobody would pay for it. It was a very laboured effort to prove that this was a Government of economy which was carrying out economies in all directions. Yet the hon. and gallant Gentleman to-night is found supporting the proposal to spend more money on increasing the salary of his colleagues, and, I suppose, his own. There are two classes in the Government—those who have got plenty of money, and do not need an increase of salary, and those who have not got any money and would like to get the biggest salaries possible. That is human nature. We need not waste any sympathy on the first class. The Lord Privy Seal could struggle along and make ends moot even if he did not get any salary at all. As for those who do need the money urgently, I can only say that as Ministers they are receiving bigger incomes than they ever had before they became Ministers, and they ought to be very well satisfied. I have never believed in self-sacrifice and patriotism on the part of Members of the Government. I never saw any Member of the Government willing to make financial sacrifices.

Mr. BONAR LAW: Quite wrong.

Mr. MacVEAGH: I shall be glad to see some example. I know that in a few cases they have sacrificed directorships of limited liability companies, but otherwise I do not think that any such sacrifice has been made. This is the sort of proposal that the country will not like. There are many other classes in the community who stand in just as much need of consideration as Members of the Government—for instance, Civil Service pensioners. Many of these people are living and bringing up families, and their pensions are £50 or £60 a, year, which is worth £20 or £30 a year in old money. Yet the Government has been deaf to every appeal to consider the position of these pensioners and how they are affected by the present cost of living. These people do not understand why men with a salary of £5,000 should get an increase and they with their £50 should be left without any. There are some things that even this House of Commons will not swallow without examining very carefully. One of them, I believe, is the proposal to increase the already sufficiently high salaries of Ministers. If I am still a Member of this House when this proposition comes up, I will take a very keen interest in it, and will want a much better reason than the statement that if you cannot pay good salaries you cannot get a good government. I admit that the Lord Privy Seal has proved this proposition with regard to the Government of which he is a Member, but I do not think he has proved it with regard to past Governments or future Governments or during future years when the Members of a Government will not be determined entirely as to their character and capacity by the salaries which will be paid.

Sir H. CRAIK: It is always possible, when you fix a salary for a Minister, for someone with a smaller salary to say, "Because I am poorer than that Minister you are overpaying him." My hon. and gallant Friend (Commander Bellairs) said that this proposal would not find support, and he suggested that the Committee was composed of budding Ministers. I am not a budding candidate for Ministerial office. I look upon this question with perfect impartiality, but I am quite convinced that as a matter of business something should be done. I would have been very glad if it had been proposed to go back to something like the arrangement which was
made in the last Ministry, where salaries were pooled and an equal salary was assigned to each. I think that probably the total of the amounts is adequate, but that there might be a levelling all over which would not increase expenditure. That was found to be an expedient arrangement in the late Ministry, but it is not a business proposition to have a different rate of salary paid arbitrarily and for no reason to different Cabinet Ministers. The salary for the Secretary of Scotland is not a high one. The Secretary for Scotland has made great sacrifices, in the public interest, at the request of the Prime Minister. He sacrificed not only a large professional income, but a salary of £5,000 a year as Lord Advocate, in the interests of his country, in order to take up more responsible work as Secretary for Scotland at a salary of £2,000 a year.

Mr. MacVEAGH: I quite agree with regard to the Secretary for Scotland, but his case is no reason for increasing the salary of everybody else.

Sir H. CRAIK: It is a reason for levelling salaries. No one would say that the President, of the Board of Education, with the enormous Department and its far-reaching interests which he controls, ought to be paid less than the Minister without Portfolio or the President of the Board of Trade. To defer the appointment of a Minister to a better-paid post because he is so useful in his existing position is not just. The opposition to this proposal is not unanimous. I confidently support this proposal. I think the nation as a whole will think that business will be best managed by a proper adjustment of salaries, whatever figures may be decided on.

It being a Quarter past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

PEIVATE BUSINESS.

DERWENT VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL [By Order].

Consideration of Lords Amendments deferred till Tuesday, 16th November, at a Quarter past Eight of the clock.

MINISTERS' SALARIES.

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Amendment to Question,
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider whether the salaries of any of the Ministers are relatively inadequate and should be increased; and, if so, to what extent.

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

Dr. MURRAY: I quite agree with the Motion. This is a matter which ought to be inquired into, for there are many anomalies in the salaries of Ministers. It is quite an easy matter to get a cheap reputation for economy by opposing a proposal of this sort. It is not real economy to starve important Members of the Ministry. I appreciate the suggestion of an hon. Member with regard to securing the future of the Prime Minister. In any event, this Committee has only to inquire into the facts and we can discuss the matter again. I must express my regret that the officers of this House are not included in the Motion. I do not see why the Speaker, who has to listen to all these speeches, and the Chairman of Committees, should not be included in the Motion.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.

Proposed words there added.

Ordered, that a Select Committee be appointed to consider what the remuneration of Ministers should be.

Mr. Charles Barrie, Mr. Beckett, Sir Burton Chadwick, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, Mr. Clynes, Colonel Sir Godfrey Collins, Sir Henry Dalziel, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Samuel Hoare, Mr. Hogge, Sir Harry
Hope, Lieut.-Colonel Jackson, Mr. Robertson, Mr. Thomas Shaw, Mr. J. W. Wilson and Lieut.-Commander Hilton Young nominated members of the Committee.

Ordered, that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.

Ordered, that Five be the quorum.—[Colonel Gibbs.]

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley), pursuant to the Order of the House of 19th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Mr. HOGGE: Can the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury tell us whether any other business is to be taken on Monday except the Financial Resolution of the Ministry of Health (Miscellaneous Powers) Bill?

Lord EDMUND TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): We start with the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution of the Ministry of Health (Miscellaneous Powers) Bill. The second Order will be the Agriculture Bill.

Mr. HOGGE: Nothing beyond that will be taken?

Lord E. TALBOT: No.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty minutes after Eight o'clock, till Monday next, 15th November, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of this Day.